81 replies to this topic

[Jman5]

We have enough maps now, that I think players should be given the opportunity to veto one map. We all have that one map that's just incredibly frustrating and not fun for your build. Without being able to adjust your build/mech for the map, we're left with an unsatisfactory experience.

Nearly every game I have played in the last 10 years has a limited map veto function. It's time for PGI to adopt this design decision or give players more loadout flexibility for the map.

For me, that it's alpine peaks. It's too open and too big for my hunchback. In coordinated matches you can perform difficult pushes to minimize the distance, but in solo queue I'm often left idling while I wait for events to transpire.

This would also give you valuable metrics on what maps people are avoiding and allow you to work toward addressing design flaws in the map.

[CDLord HHGD]

Jman5, on 21 July 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

We have enough maps now....

And this is where you lost me......

[Mcgral18]

The WubShee doesn't like Alpine or Mordor.

This is a nice idea. Which won't be implemented for another few years.

[nehebkau]

I like the idea but I don't think it should be implemented. All the lazor-boy builds will uncheck Mordor. All the slowest mechs will uncheck the giant maps, LRM-boys will uncheck the maps with the most cover...

It just leads to more meta-build-optimization which is already ruining the game.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

nehebkau, on 21 July 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

I like the idea but I don't think it should be implemented. All the lazor-boy builds will uncheck Mordor. All the slowest mechs will uncheck the giant maps, LRM-boys will uncheck the maps with the most cover...

It just leads to more meta-build-optimization which is already ruining the game.

Well that is kinda the point of strategy, maps dictate tactics and you are going to pick maps that suit your loadout.....

Edited by majora incarnate, 21 July 2014 - 12:54 PM.

[Sandpit]

uhm they're already working on a map vote option

veto is ok as long as you can't selectively and continuously veto the same map repeatedly. Then you just have people putting together hot builds and only wanting to run on cold maps

[anonymous161]

Jman5, on 21 July 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

We have enough maps now, that I think players should be given the opportunity to veto one map. We all have that one map that's just incredibly frustrating and not fun for your build. Without being able to adjust your build/mech for the map, we're left with an unsatisfactory experience.

Nearly every game I have played in the last 10 years has a limited map veto function. It's time for PGI to adopt this design decision or give players more loadout flexibility for the map.

For me, that it's alpine peaks. It's too open and too big for my hunchback. In coordinated matches you can perform difficult pushes to minimize the distance, but in solo queue I'm often left idling while I wait for events to transpire.

This would also give you valuable metrics on what maps people are avoiding and allow you to work toward addressing design flaws in the map.

First off you are extremely off with the *we have enough maps* most games that have been released in the last decade have had twice what this game has.

That being said an obvious idea that has merit once we have a few more maps.

[Deathlike]

Vote No for "Nordor".

It'll only happen when hell freezes over.

[Ultimax]

Sandpit, on 21 July 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

uhm they're already working on a map vote option

veto is ok as long as you can't selectively and continuously veto the same map repeatedly. Then you just have people putting together hot builds and only wanting to run on cold maps

Do I hear a cbill sink in the making?

One match per day, per mech can be vetoed for free. (Or one map per account if we want to be super strict).

Beyond that, it cost X amount of cbills to veto another map.

[Screech]

Even though the thought of never having to play Caustic again is extremely appealing, I don't think we have the amount of maps to support. Can come back to it in 2018 or so.

[Sug]

Ultimatum X, on 21 July 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

Do I hear a cbill sink in the making?

More likely an MC sink.

[Xeno Phalcon]

Trollteam One: constantly votes for modor!

(PGI method: only premium users will be able to vote.)

[1453 R]

Because being able to constantly and consistently avoid That One Map that ruins your ultraspecialized one-dimensionsal neo-Splatcat build is a fantastic way to promote game diversity and balance. Why try to come up with designs that can fight in a variety of situations and on a variety of maps, or improve your ability to force situations in which your particular build shines even in a non-optimal map and thus Ell Two Pee, when you can just grind dem billz with your Boomjag in River City all day erry day?

TL;DR: No. Don't give players a map veto option.

[Sandpit]

Ultimatum X, on 21 July 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

Do I hear a cbill sink in the making?

One match per day, per mech can be vetoed for free. (Or one map per account if we want to be super strict).

Beyond that, it cost X amount of cbills to veto another map.

the devs also said it would have a cost associated with continuing to vote out of a map

[Jman5]

It seems some people are getting hung up on whether we have enough maps in the game or not. The point I was trying to make is that we have enough maps where giving a veto option on one map would not cause major matchmaking problem. I certainly welcome more maps, but this is completely beside the point. We have 13 maps with 2 more on the way. Giving 1 veto out of 15 maps seems like it wouldn't cause too many problems and it would save a lot of people headaches.

The idea would be a checkbox at the start like how people can check Conquest, Assault, and Skirmish. Let people check 1 map for a veto and then let the matchmaker search for any game except one that is on that specific map.

[C E Dwyer]

christ ! not this again...

so what you going to do in the innersphere wars when your house/clan says go take the iceplanet xyz only play on tera therma

[Jman5]

Cathy, on 21 July 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

christ ! not this again...

so what you going to do in the innersphere wars when your house/clan says go take the iceplanet xyz only play on tera therma

1 map veto out of 15 possible maps is not going to be the end of the world. Every multiplayer game I know has a limited map veto function because it makes sense. Nobody is suggesting that we should give players the ability to veto every single map except one.

Edited by Jman5, 21 July 2014 - 01:52 PM.

[Sandpit]

Cathy, on 21 July 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

christ ! not this again...

so what you going to do in the innersphere wars when your house/clan says go take the iceplanet xyz only play on tera therma

maybe you missed my earlier post?
They're already working on it

plus i'm not sure what the christian messiah has to do with map votes lol

[Joseph Mallan]

Jman5, on 21 July 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

We have enough maps now, that I think players should be given the opportunity to veto one map. We all have that one map that's just incredibly frustrating and not fun for your build. Without being able to adjust your build/mech for the map, we're left with an unsatisfactory experience.

Nearly every game I have played in the last 10 years has a limited map veto function. It's time for PGI to adopt this design decision or give players more loadout flexibility for the map.

For me, that it's alpine peaks. It's too open and too big for my hunchback. In coordinated matches you can perform difficult pushes to minimize the distance, but in solo queue I'm often left idling while I wait for events to transpire.

This would also give you valuable metrics on what maps people are avoiding and allow you to work toward addressing design flaws in the map.

Thats like saying I don't wanna fight there. Wish things could work that way but Unless you are assigned to a nice planet, you have to fight where the enemy shows up.

[Vassago Rain]

But then absolutely no one would play river city night.