81 replies to this topic

[Jman5]

What I'm suggesting is nothing as intrusive as a vote option after you drop into a match. That would probably require a good deal of back end work. What I'm suggesting is a pre-launch filter just like we have for game modes. Only you would be restricted to 1 map veto.

A lot of people seem to misunderstand what I'm suggesting so I bolded the important parts.

It seems that some people want to force everyone to play a map they hate the most because: reasons. And then vague accusations of call of duty as if that somehow settles things. Why do you guys care if someone pre-filters a map out in derpy pug play? It means nothing to you.

Edited by Jman5, 22 July 2014 - 07:05 PM.

[CeeKay Boques]

They have premium time for this.

Private matches.

That said, in other games, you would have a lobby and everyone would sit in the lobby and vote on the next map.

That was fun.... but we don't have a lobby.

[Sandpit]

Thorn Hallis, on 22 July 2014 - 03:15 AM, said:

How much will you bet?

Forest Colony 24
Frozen City 14
Caustic Valley 59
River City 27
Forest Colony Snow 37
Frozen City Night 28
River City Night 28
Alpine Peaks 66
Tourmaline Desert 58
Canyon Network 60
Terra Therma 64
Crimson Strait 65
HPG Manifold 59

A year premium time
Up for it? Then I'll shop you your maps are even

[Hillslam]

I've got 4 points for people to chew on:

1 - CW design atm (it might change) looks a lot like a lobby system. Wherein players get to CHOOSE the planet they attack/defend (guess what: that means some customers will CHOOSE never to attack/defend certain planets)
2 - NOBODY is under ANY OBLIGATION to spend THEIR free time doing something they don't like (just because you want them to) - despite what you, the devs, some document, or black jesus has to say about that
3 - Some people just DON'T LIKE some maps, and this has nothing to do with mech builds or "poor decisions"
4 - Stop making ASSumptions about others and then posting condescending tripe. You'll appear smarter than you are.

Edited by Hillslam, 22 July 2014 - 08:40 AM.

[Zervziel]

Map Vetoing will probably be in the game about the same time they put in some new maps, which I believe is scheduled some time after the heat death of the universe.

[Fut]

1453 R, on 21 July 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:

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.

Correct, and quite humorous.

[1453 R]

Jman5, on 22 July 2014 - 07:12 AM, said:

What I'm suggesting is nothing as intrusive as a vote option after you drop into a match. That would probably require a good deal of back end work. What I'm suggesting is a pre-launch filter just like we have for game modes. Only you would be restricted to 1 map veto.

A lot of people don't seem to misunderstand what I'm suggesting so I bolded the important parts.

It seems that some people want to force everyone to play a map they hate the most because: reasons. And then vague accusations of call of duty as if that somehow settles things. Why do you guys care if someone pre-filters a map out in derpy pug play? It means nothing to you.

I'ma lay this out for ye one more time.

Say you're a Splatcat pilot. Yeah, Splats are so 2013, but they're a classic example and also pretty simple and easy to understand. Now, as a Splatcat pilot, you just absolutely hate it any time you drop in a map that isn't River City. Or the upcoming new 'Mech Factory, but still. Anywhere there isn't thick and abundant cover and combat ranges less than a hundred meters, you're pissed off. Enough so that any time Alpine - your bitterest and most hateful foe - shows up, you drop the match rather than play on it.

I get it, I do - you'd rather pre-emptively drop Alpine from your drop queue entirely rather than just auto-ragequit any match in which Alpine turns up. there's something to be said for that...but here's the thing.

1.) Players Should Not Be Rewarded For Being Bassholes
Giving players a shiny new "F%#@ THIS MAP" button as a thank-you for disconnecting from any match in which their personal most-hated match shows up is kind of a dikk move. If you're going to pull that sort of crap, you deserve losing access to your 'Mech for a time while the rest of us fight it out properly. Sure, it'd forestall the inevitable nine-on-seven matches in Alpine...but I don't really feel like rewarding bad behavior by the player base is a thing we should do.

2.) Players Should Not Be Rewarded For Being Idjits.
Even on something as derpy as a Splatcat, it's not that hard to find room for one single LRM launcher so you have something to do when not slinking around looking to bear-trap people (note: I threw that together in, like, thirty seconds as a proof of concept. Not claiming it's anywhere near optimized, simply stating that it's very easily possible). If you're going to go 100% full-out bonkers in one narrow aspect of the game, a'la Splatcats, then you deserve to have a hard time. If you're not sufficiently awesome that you can force your preferred engagement range whenever you feel like it, then maybe...just maybe...you shouldn't build a 'Mech that's completely crippled if it doesn't drop on the one or two maps that you're hoping to see? Allowing players to cut maps out of their rotation so that they don't have to account for the fact that maybe the fight isn't going to go 110% their way in every drop? That sounds a lot like giving players licenses to be complete ***** to me.

3.) Players Should Be Rewarded For Versatility
This game is at its best when there's a wide variety of stuff out there and you never know what's going to come around the corner and start shooting you. Matches are more interesting and the game is more engaging when there's a profusion of different builds out there. It's the reason people have been begging PGI to do something effective to curtail long-distance jump sniping for so long now. Aaaaaand...allowing people to just completely flat ignore the potential of being caught out of their element will kill a lot of that already sickly and ailing game diversity. You'll end up with a set of pseudo-buckets in which players who like jump sniping have all disabled the short-range maps and thus end up doing nothing but jump-sniping on Alpine or Crimson, players who like Surmbombing or old-school brawling have disabled all the long-range maps and thus end up doing nothing but bearhug matches on River City or Forest Colony, and players who like energy duels have disabled all the hot maps and end up doing nothing but PPC hosing each other on Frozen City or HPG. None of these players'll ever see each other again, and the game will end up a weird, twisted space difficult to balance effectively because it's been broken up into oddly-shaped chunks. Not to mention the inevitable screeching nerdrage when events or tournaments in the future require players to play in maps they thought they'd Seen The Last of Forever.

Much better, on the whole, to make people cope with the fact that they're going to have to face everything the game has to offer at some point, and those players who're most adaptable get to have their chance to shine.

[Jman5]

Your entire argument seems to be based around punishing everyone so that some people are extra punished for building brawler decks.

You know there are plenty of reasons to not like a map beyond simple loadout restrictions. Some people might dislike HPG Manifold because the invisible walls are really bad. Some people might really like playing skirmish, but don't like skirmish on alpine peaks because too many of their games end with 1 light hiding in the mountains for 10 minutes. Someone may have just gotten River City for the 3rd time in a row and wants to avoid that map for a bit.

This is a game people are playing for fun and we're talking about pointless pugging. Who cares if joe-schmoe avoids playing Caustic Valley? This all seems rather vindictive on your part. Especially when you take into account the fact that many long range projectile and laser weapons are just as effective on small maps as they are on big ones.

[Sandpit]

1453 R, on 22 July 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

I'ma lay this out for ye one more time.

Say you're a Splatcat pilot. Yeah, Splats are so 2013, but they're a classic example and also pretty simple and easy to understand. Now, as a Splatcat pilot, you just absolutely hate it any time you drop in a map that isn't River City. Or the upcoming new 'Mech Factory, but still. Anywhere there isn't thick and abundant cover and combat ranges less than a hundred meters, you're pissed off. Enough so that any time Alpine - your bitterest and most hateful foe - shows up, you drop the match rather than play on it.

I get it, I do - you'd rather pre-emptively drop Alpine from your drop queue entirely rather than just auto-ragequit any match in which Alpine turns up. there's something to be said for that...but here's the thing.

1.) Players Should Not Be Rewarded For Being Bassholes
Giving players a shiny new "F%#@ THIS MAP" button as a thank-you for disconnecting from any match in which their personal most-hated match shows up is kind of a dikk move. If you're going to pull that sort of crap, you deserve losing access to your 'Mech for a time while the rest of us fight it out properly. Sure, it'd forestall the inevitable nine-on-seven matches in Alpine...but I don't really feel like rewarding bad behavior by the player base is a thing we should do.

2.) Players Should Not Be Rewarded For Being Idjits.
Even on something as derpy as a Splatcat, it's not that hard to find room for one single LRM launcher so you have something to do when not slinking around looking to bear-trap people (note: I threw that together in, like, thirty seconds as a proof of concept. Not claiming it's anywhere near optimized, simply stating that it's very easily possible). If you're going to go 100% full-out bonkers in one narrow aspect of the game, a'la Splatcats, then you deserve to have a hard time. If you're not sufficiently awesome that you can force your preferred engagement range whenever you feel like it, then maybe...just maybe...you shouldn't build a 'Mech that's completely crippled if it doesn't drop on the one or two maps that you're hoping to see? Allowing players to cut maps out of their rotation so that they don't have to account for the fact that maybe the fight isn't going to go 110% their way in every drop? That sounds a lot like giving players licenses to be complete ***** to me.

3.) Players Should Be Rewarded For Versatility
This game is at its best when there's a wide variety of stuff out there and you never know what's going to come around the corner and start shooting you. Matches are more interesting and the game is more engaging when there's a profusion of different builds out there. It's the reason people have been begging PGI to do something effective to curtail long-distance jump sniping for so long now. Aaaaaand...allowing people to just completely flat ignore the potential of being caught out of their element will kill a lot of that already sickly and ailing game diversity. You'll end up with a set of pseudo-buckets in which players who like jump sniping have all disabled the short-range maps and thus end up doing nothing but jump-sniping on Alpine or Crimson, players who like Surmbombing or old-school brawling have disabled all the long-range maps and thus end up doing nothing but bearhug matches on River City or Forest Colony, and players who like energy duels have disabled all the hot maps and end up doing nothing but PPC hosing each other on Frozen City or HPG. None of these players'll ever see each other again, and the game will end up a weird, twisted space difficult to balance effectively because it's been broken up into oddly-shaped chunks. Not to mention the inevitable screeching nerdrage when events or tournaments in the future require players to play in maps they thought they'd Seen The Last of Forever.

Much better, on the whole, to make people cope with the fact that they're going to have to face everything the game has to offer at some point, and those players who're most adaptable get to have their chance to shine.

did you miss my post where I showed how to avoid players wanting to just play one specific map or avoid one specific match?

[Wolfways]

Jman5, on 22 July 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

pointless pugging.

I.e. I don't care what you think because i think the mode you choose to play is pointless.

[Mainhunter]

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.

It's fine, so the LRM-Boys play with them selfs.

[Sandpit]

Mainhunter, on 22 July 2014 - 03:41 PM, said:

It's fine, so the LRM-Boys play with them selfs.

no, it's not fine to have maps avoided and favorite maps played always. That's what premium private matches are for. Set up the game however you want.

Again, for those that missed it, a system similar to CoD's would prevent players from excluding a map as well as prevent them from consistently dropping on their favorite map
Map can't be vetoed more than twice in a row
Map can't be selected more than twice in a row

It's really that simple...

Then have a vetoed map unable to be vetoed for 2-3 rounds
Have a map that's been selected twice in a row tossed out of rotation for 2-3 rounds.

I don't understand why people seem to think map vote option means you certain maps would never get played. It's easily remedied as I just showed

[1453 R]

Isn't that what you guys are asking for, though? The option to make sure you never have to look at certain maps again? That's pretty much what I'm reading in the original post, what with the guy wanting to just cut maps entirely out of his rotation. And of course every time this subject comes up we get all the same people trumpeting about how it's JUST NO FAIR that they can't play horribly lopsided single-bracket builds and then avoid the three quarters of the game's map selection that would render their horrid build an untenable mess.

It burns the cookies of those who've figured out that the way to not get map-screwed is to not build 'Mechs that only work on one or two maps tops.

[Sandpit]

1453 R, on 22 July 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

Isn't that what you guys are asking for, though?

Ok....
uhm did you not read what I posted right above this?

[1453 R]

I did. I was, in fact, responding to you directly.

[Sandpit]

1453 R, on 22 July 2014 - 05:22 PM, said:

I did. I was, in fact, responding to you directly.

Then how in the heck does that translate to avoiding a specific map constantly or having a specific map always voted up? The system I just described is the exact opposite of that and I even explained how it can work to avoid the situation you're talking about. I don't understand how that could be misunderstood?

[Sephlock]

1453 R, on 22 July 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

Isn't that what you guys are asking for, though? The option to make sure you never have to look at certain maps again? That's pretty much what I'm reading in the original post, what with the guy wanting to just cut maps entirely out of his rotation. And of course every time this subject comes up we get all the same people trumpeting about how it's JUST NO FAIR that they can't play horribly lopsided single-bracket builds and then avoid the three quarters of the game's map selection that would render their horrid build an untenable mess.

It burns the cookies of those who've figured out that the way to not get map-screwed is to not build 'Mechs that only work on one or two maps tops.

So, never pilot a Dire Whale- and if you do, always cram lots of LRMs on it and just pray you can arrive to the battle in time to make a difference?

[Sandpit]

1453 R, on 22 July 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

It burns the cookies of those who've figured out that the way to not get map-screwed is to not build 'Mechs that only work on one or two maps tops.

what burns my cookies is when people comment on posts that they obviously either didn't read or are too focused in on their own opinion to acknowledge that concerns they have about a system like this can easily be put to rest when another players specifically explains and describes mechanics that would completely prevent their fears. In this case that being maps being completely avoided.

IF A MAP IS VETOED TWICE IN A ROW THEN IT CAN NO LONGER BE VETOED AGAIN AFTER THAT FOR A FEW ROUNDS TO PREVENT A MAP BEING EXCLUDED FOR ROTATION IN AN ATTEMPT TO GAME THE SYSTEM AND ONLY PLAY ON MAPS FAVORABLE TO A FEW DESIGNS

I dont' know how else to explain it other than that statement. I don't understand how you cannot read that and understand that there are ways to prevent what you're talking about that's i've already explained like 3 times now in this very thread

[1453 R]

Sephlock, on 22 July 2014 - 05:28 PM, said:

So, never pilot a Dire Whale- and if you do, always cram lots of LRMs on it and just pray you can arrive to the battle in time to make a difference?

I don't actually pilot Dire Whales, no. And generally consider them to be a very risky choice in Puglandia, for exactly this reason. It's not a 'Mech well-suited to adapting to whatever battle it finds itself fighting. It needs support and active, pre-battle planning to really do its thing. I vastly prefer the Warhawk, out of the two Invasion assaults, simply because the 'Hawk has the mobility it needs to keep up with the fight and can be armed in a manner which allows it to adapt to whatever needs doing at the time.

So no – don't pilot Dire Whales. They're bad for you and will get you dead unless the enemy team is a bunch of derpalong Sallies. Or a bunch of Steiners. Which amounts to the same thing, I suppose.

Sandpit, on 22 July 2014 - 05:28 PM, said:

what burns my cookies is when people comment on posts that they obviously either didn't read or are too focused in on their own opinion to acknowledge that concerns they have about a system like this can easily be put to rest when another players specifically explains and describes mechanics that would completely prevent their fears. In this case that being maps being completely avoided.

IF A MAP IS VETOED TWICE IN A ROW THEN IT CAN NO LONGER BE VETOED AGAIN AFTER THAT FOR A FEW ROUNDS TO PREVENT A MAP BEING EXCLUDED FOR ROTATION IN AN ATTEMPT TO GAME THE SYSTEM AND ONLY PLAY ON MAPS FAVORABLE TO A FEW DESIGNS

I dont' know how else to explain it other than that statement. I don't understand how you cannot read that and understand that there are ways to prevent what you're talking about that's i've already explained like 3 times now in this very thread

And what's to stop someone from dropping a lobby/match/whatever they've gotten their double-veto on and resetting the counter, hm? And frankly, even if they can't do that it still means a heavy blow to battlefield diversity because pilots can cut two-thirds of their “off drops” out of their rotations entirely. Two vetoes, one grit-and-bear-it, then two more vetoes. We still get overspecialization that doesn't have to be paid for, which is the entire reason why randomized map drops is a thing. If you positively, absolutely just can not stand to not have control over where you're dropping, then go do private matches.

The rest of us would like to not deal with nothing but one-map-specific overoptimized bullcrank on every single map in every single game

[Sephlock]

1453 R, on 22 July 2014 - 05:48 PM, said:

I don't actually pilot Dire Whales, no. And generally consider them to be a very risky choice in Puglandia,

Even in a team, at best you are going to drag your teammates down with your SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW and ponderous movement across a VASSSSTTTT frozen wasteland.