58 replies to this topic

[nepacaka]

all triangles maps are stupid and chaotic (facility, lostEco). worsest maps for MA.
frontline and losteco so big. stupid maps for MA. in Siege mode their size doesn't matter, because 80% of map never uses in fight. big maps so stupid.
wreckage is not bad map. but AA construction is ugly. also, a little "tunnels map". in general, it si not bad.

Bunker, stupid and chaotic in MA mode.
Origin is good. hawken need maps like origin. it is not big, but huge in general, because it have a 3 floors. any mech can find his own place on origin.

easy way to fix:
Facility  DM / TDM / MA only

LostEco  TDM / Siege  only
Wreckage  TDM / MA / Siege  only

Uptown  DM / TDM  only
Prosk  DM / TDM  only
Origin  DM / TDM/ MA / Siege  only
Bunker  DM / TDM / Siege  only

Bazaar  TDM / MA  only

 

maps special created for 1-2 game modes can help. for example map, created only for MA and Siege. Or special map for TDM and DM. etc.

hawken need more vertical maps like prosk. not like lostEco, bunker, or bazaar, where you always stand on one floor..
 

[Pleasure_Mortar]

I like prosk and the verticality, but I hate origin and uptown. I'd love to see maps like bazaar and last eco with more verticality but I also enjoy the open terrain. Remove the barriers around cliffs and buildings and tweak them for a balanced gameplay.

[Nightfirebolt]

The only map I really dislike is uptown, and only because of its problematic choke points.

 

I love all the rest of the maps, even Bunker, although I admit it has some problems.

 

In my opinion, we don't need to edit or change the maps we have, we just need more maps, and more types of maps (with one exception: Fix all the holes and skywalking in the current maps).

[Odinous]

The only map I really dislike is uptown, and only because of its problematic choke points.

 

I love all the rest of the maps, even Bunker, although I admit it has some problems.

 

In my opinion, we don't need to edit or change the maps we have, we just need more maps, and more types of maps (with one exception: Fix all the holes and skywalking in the current maps).

it is still a great map,origin,even with the choke points.especially if both team are balanced(which again is not a problem with the map).And to be completely honest its the best optimized in game too,on my old computer i could get 80 fps,while everything else could give me below 60 or 50..bazzar was giving me 40 on medium graphics for example..

[StubbornPuppet]

I like triangle/circular maps.

In fact, I don't have too many problems with any of Hawkens maps.

 

My biggest gripe is the size distortion between mech, object and everything else make it look so hodge-podge - because lots of little changes took place during game design overhauls that left it that way.  No really good choice for fixing it now, so whatever - they still play.

 

I like the variety that the different styles of maps bring.  It seems like most of the complaints about 'this map' or 'those maps' comes from the fact that they aren't like the others which the person does like.  Sorry, nobody is going to like every map.  And they're going to dislike or like them for all kinds of different reasons.  So, again, variety.

 

I would like to see some that run along a ravine or other narrow passage - like a 'hallway' if you please.  Put the objectives in a basically straight line between the team bases and play it kind of like a tug-o-war.  Most of the play takes place by going straight up head-to-head against the other team and trying to push them back towards their own base - but there'd be a few small passages here and there to allow players to attempt to slip behind the lines.  Sure, sometimes the games on maps like that are going to get ugly... and sometimes a team is going to end up pushed back into their base.  Waaaah!!!  But when you are the team that is pushed back and you manage to start making headway and push the other team all the way back to theirs and steal victory - so sweet!  It can be done right.

 

Another idea for a triangular/circular map would be to have a mostly open courtyard with some cat-walks and obstacles with a multi-level, circular base surrounding it.  The objectives would be on different levels at even spaced points around the base.  Players are choosing whether to stay in the added safety of the indoors and work/fight their way around the halls and ramps to get around the circumference or charge across the courtyard to cut down on travel time, but take more risk by being exposed.

 

Hey, creating maps is what I do... I could probably sit here all day and type up ideas and then go build them... if I only had the tools.

Edited by StubbornPuppet, 04 November 2015 - 07:35 AM.

[DM30]

I would like to see some that run along a ravine or other narrow passage - like a 'hallway' if you please. Put the objectives in a basically straight line between the team bases and play it kind of like a tug-o-war. Most of the play takes place by going straight up head-to-head against the other team and trying to push them back towards their own base - but there'd be a few small passages here and there to allow players to attempt to slip behind the lines. Sure, sometimes the games on maps like that are going to get ugly... and sometimes a team is going to end up pushed back into their base. Waaaah!!! But when you are the team that is pushed back and you manage to start making headway and push the other team all the way back to theirs and steal victory - so sweet! It can be done right.

Ew. Now I'm just thinking about Operation Locker in BF4 where almost every single game I've played there has been one team base-camping the other. It's almost exactly the layout you're describing, but the ugly games don't happen just "sometimes", at least not in my experience.

[Massive_Assailant_Stingray]

  It seems like most of the complaints about 'this map' or 'those maps' comes from the fact that they aren't like the others which the person does like.  Sorry, nobody is going to like every map.  And they're going to dislike or like them for all kinds of different reasons.  So, again, variety.

 

 

I think I've laid out, pretty objectively, why I think ALL the maps are bad, from multiple game design aspects. Going so far as to suggest that the maps I like the very most are the also the very worst offenders. That's why I find some of these simpler "hey I like hawken maps" answers disappointing. Are you objectively weighing out the points I've listed here, or are you just sort of saying "hey this is a map, and people can play on it, so good enough"?

 

I'm not asking "do you like hawken maps?", I have my likes and dislikes, as does anyone else. I'm asking you to break them down mechanically, and judge their worth against the game mode.

[StubbornPuppet]

^DM30, you are absolutely right - maps like Operation Locker are an abomination.  This is why I said, "It can be done right."  The map has to gradually and effectively tilt in favor of the 'home' team the closer you get to their base so that it is not only possible but likely that said 'home' team can fight off a siege.  The combined effective use of elevation, strategic spawn-points, multiple points of entry, lack of fall-back cover (for the invaders), base defenses and the like can really make all the difference.

 

^Massive_Assailant_Stingray, I didn't mean that to be a critique of you or any other specific players grievances.  More of a broad, general statement.  But you have rightfully earned your 'touche'.  From a critical perspective, most all maps in all games are 'bad' for various reasons.  A map is usually best when it is designed to cater to a very specific game mode - and you get bonus points when it also plays well on other modes.  From the 30,000 ft. view, I will readily admit that all of the Hawken maps are pretty mediocre and flawed.  It doesn't much inhibit my ability to play and enjoy them though - I just adapt and accept that everyone else is playing on the same map with the same limitations.

 

I have played games with much, much worse maps though - and I'll go straight for the top with one of what is, in my opiniion, the biggest offenders: Halo.  Granted, it has been a long time since I played Halo and I stopped bothering after early stabs at Halo 3... so this really refers mostly to Halo 1 and 2.  The maps in both of the first two games were simply terrible.  They all seemed to be designed so that one player (or team) could very quickly and decisively take full control of the entire rest of the match by taking over a few key camping locations and guarding all the good weapons.  Every match became a foredrawn conclusion within 60 seconds of its start.  Also, the matches were basically exercises in repeating the exact same scenarios over and over again, ad-nauseum.

 

As for a mechanical breakdown of each of the maps in Hawken, I simply don't have the time and energy.  Sorry, that's lame... but it is what it is.

[JackVandal]

i side mostly with puppet, i think the maps aren't the worst, many of them can be quite fun, but the issue with hawken is the number of maps is small, in addition with the large variation in the way a game mode must be played blocks the effectiveness of a map, and these issues are compounded by often poor balance.

 

as for personal gripes i hate bazar and eco purely for what they do to my fps, though my pc doesn't help, those two maps are still terribly optimized.

[Massive_Assailant_Stingray]

 

As for a mechanical breakdown of each of the maps in Hawken, I simply don't have the time and energy.  Sorry, that's lame... but it is what it is.

 

Hey, ain't nobody got time for that. Sincerely can't blame you there, I just didn't want to see you outright dismiss any of my breakdown with anything as subjectively shallow as "I like em", or "eh not bad tbh".
 

 

 But you have rightfully earned your 'touche'.

 

 : )

 

 

I will readily admit that all of the Hawken maps are pretty mediocre and flawed.  It doesn't much inhibit my ability to play and enjoy them though - I just adapt and accept that everyone else is playing on the same map with the same limitations.

 

And I do the same. Though, ultimately, my competitive nature, on top of my desire to see hawken be the best it can be, do eventually come crashing down on the experience.

 

But even still, I don't think my criticisms are all about competition or inability to settle for less. Maps have such a huge impact on the game. Here we have hawken and it's core mechanics, which all of us here pretty much agree are fantastic, it's what we're here for. Maps the delivery system for that game core, it's how we receive and utilize it. If you try to deliver someone a glass of water in a strainer, the consumer ends up with no water. I think that in a similar manner the maps could be creating a large problem with how we interact with hawken. To the point where users might not even understand why they're having such a poopy over all experience, when it could boil down to map specific things like: getting locked behind the chokes on bazaar, or having 3 enemies spawn in your control point on facility, or any other form of random chaos caused by random spawn in triangle maps.

[StubbornPuppet]

M.A.S.  I had meant to point out that I was as much (or more so) referencing various other posts, besides your original post.  It was a blanket statement about the general sentiment I was gathering from reading through.  Your analysis is cool.

 

As for the spawning on triangular/circular maps, I can tell you how that works in Missile Assault for sure:

 

The spawn position for a player will be determined by averaging between three figures:

 

• which Silo's your team holds
• where the majority of the enemy players are
• where the majority of your team players are

 

with the most weight applied in that order.

 

If your team holds one silo, you will spawn around that silo.  If your team holds no silos, your spawn point will be as far away from enemy players as possible and preferential treatment will be given to where the majority of your own team is.  If you hold 2 silos, you will get spawned at the silo furthest from the bulk of the enemy team and/or closest to the bulk of your own.  If you hold all three silos... you win. :P

 

And, I actually love that dynamic.  If your team pays attention to the rules of spawning, you can work together to keep the enemy team spawning at the silo which is currently least desirable for them to near.

 

For example: On Last Eco, if you can work to capture 1 and 3, and avoid capturing 2, your team can put a player guarding 1 and 3 and have the rest of the team monitor the areas where enemies would travel from 2 to the others and keep them at bay.  However, if some dipstick on your team runs off and captures 2, just because they can, it ruins the strategy and will usually result in your team losing 1 and 3 pretty quickly.  Silo 2 on Last Eco is also a little further away from 1 and 3 than 1 and 3 are from each other - so, it makes even more sense to work hard to just keep moving back and forth between 1 and 3 and ignoring 2.

[Badtings]

I like most of the maps. I'd LOVE to make a few changes to Wreckage, Bunker and Uptown, but for the most part I think they're a lot of fun and work well for various mechs. 

[Massive_Assailant_Stingray]

I realize that's how it works, and I'm not a fan. I think holding a team into a silo should result from having a strong hold on your own silos, and not from gingerly toeing the line of their 1 silo without stepping on it. It's any easy enough concept (though as I mentioned, an unfavorable one imo) in comp games, managing spawns. (unless you're Nept and your team hasn't played in 3 months, then it's a bit like herding cats) But it's not very good for pub play. You can't expect every random player to understand that system, your comms are limited, and organization can be hard. That can easily lead to frustration and a feeling of unfairness as someone spawns behind you on a point you control. And on an individual level like that, those types of scenarios are punishing players just for being on a team that maybe doesn't understand the need to take advantage of the flawed system.

 

The mirrored maps make it pretty obvious to players that they have their spawn, and the enemy has its spawn. It leaves open much more viable flanking and route options, requiring the defenders to pay attention and guard their point more. And it still leaves open the option for a more pubby chaotic atmosphere if that's the players flavor.

[StubbornPuppet]

So, then let's assume that the triangular/circular maps are here to stay (because a lot of people like myself do like them).

 

How would you like to see the spawn system to work on those maps?

 

Would you move the location of the spawn points?

 

Would you come up with a new algorithm for how the appropriate spot is determined?  What would it be?

 

 

As for how it is hard to manage the current system with random players... yeah, it's rough.  That would all go away with actual team based voice chat built in.  That alone would probably be one of the biggest improvements to everyone's experience with Hawken.

[Superkamikazee]

Gameplay has changed, the maps haven't. It's no surprise there's issues. The maps had issues before, but as gameplay changed, the issues just became more obvious.

Edited by Superkamikazee, 06 November 2015 - 08:10 PM.

[Massive_Assailant_Stingray]

That would all go away with actual team based voice chat built in.  That alone would probably be one of the biggest improvements to everyone's experience with Hawken.

 

Nice to hear you say that, I'm also a big supporter of voice chat, and people so often tend to scoff at it.

 

As for spawns in triangle maps. Like, look, eco and facility are my two favorite maps, I like them too, but I just don't think there is a way to fix the spawns. I think the layout is inherently flawed. There could be spawns that aren't as bad, but it doesn't really fix the core of the problem.

[Hyginos]

• which Silo's your team holds
• where the majority of the enemy players are
• where the majority of your team players are

 

It has been my experience that the silos a team holds has no impact on spawns. I have seen, in a number of instances, a team push off their two silos far enough that opposing players will spawn on (literally in the capping area) a silo that was left unattended.
 

On Bunker if a team pushes up enough players may spawn in the areas behind S1 and S3 even if there is an opposing player standing on the silo.

[phed]

It has been my experience that the silos a team holds has no impact on spawns. I have seen, in a number of instances, a team push off their two silos far enough that opposing players will spawn on (literally in the capping area) a silo that was left unattended.

On Bunker if a team pushes up enough players may spawn in the areas behind S1 and S3 even if there is an opposing player standing on the silo.

Ooh, I smell another Hyginos quick video tutorial.

[StubbornPuppet]

It has been my experience that the silos a team holds has no impact on spawns. I have seen, in a number of instances, a team push off their two silos far enough that opposing players will spawn on (literally in the capping area) a silo that was left unattended.
 

On Bunker if a team pushes up enough players may spawn in the areas behind S1 and S3 even if there is an opposing player standing on the silo.

 

You are right, there is a point at which the spawn algorithm makes an exception and goes against the priority of which silos are held.  It does happen when your whole team moves far enough off the silos and closes in on the one silo the enemy holds.

 

It is most noticeable on Bunker because of the small size of the map and the lack of a 'best choice' silo for leaving for the enemy.  It's actually a good part of the reason that MA on Bunker is so dynamic - which is a good thing.  Bunker is actually symmetrical - despite that we usually define symmetrical as 2 sides which have mirrored design, 3-sided symmetry is a thing.

 

Part of the strategy I outlined before does say that there should be a team member staying near each of the silos you hold while the rest of the team fills in the gap between the enemy held silo and your teams two.  

 

So, in conclusion, I still like the triangular/circular maps just as much as the two sided maps.  I think it gets boring playing the same dynamic and strategy over and over, despite that the terrain and objects are different.  I hope to see some more variations when/if Reloaded releases new maps - like King-of-the-Hill, pit/arena, channel/hallway, vertical...

Edited by StubbornPuppet, 09 November 2015 - 11:42 AM.