9 replies to this topic

[Finkledbody]

Dear Developers,

Having played this game for 4 months, I have found the game enjoyable. Albeit, some things need a bit of work however I can still have quite a bit of fun.

Now that I've played all the maps a few hundred times each, I now have a firm understanding that I don't enjoy some of the maps with certain mechs. Some mechs don't go up hills well, others can't fit under things, some are to slow to get to the other side so they are isolated and cutoff. I'm getting tired of it. I want to be able to choose the map I'm playing. I would gladly take a larger skill gap if that's what would come out of this change.

I've put $450 into this game since I've started and at this point, I can/will not inject one more dollar until I can choose the maps I'm playing on. With all the mechs and modules I still need, I could easily drop another $1000+ into this game. Furthermore, I would be happy to do it if I were having a good time. However, I'm not anymore.

Please allow us to choose the map.

Thanks for your time.

[AkoolPopTart]

I think you should have stopped throwing your money away long before you noticed this issue....

In any case, I would like to see an map veto system as well.

Edited by AkoolPopTart, 19 March 2015 - 08:27 AM.

[Hotthedd]

If we could do this, certain maps would never be played at all by some players. This would increase waiting times.

How about instead of vetoing maps, allow the players to switch to a different mech of the same class after you find out which map you are on?

[Finkledbody]

AkoolPopTart, on 19 March 2015 - 08:25 AM, said:

I think you should have stopped throwing your money away long before you noticed this issue....

In any case, I would like to see an map veto system as well.

Sometimes when you don't like something, you'll put up with it for a cause. I have some close friends who play this game and they enjoy my time with them. Money can be very easy for me to come by. $450 is nothing to me if it means I can have a good time.

I would be okay with a veto system. Or even "choose between these three" each game.

Hotthedd, on 19 March 2015 - 08:28 AM, said:

If we could do this, certain maps would never be played at all by some players. This would increase waiting times.

How about instead of vetoing maps, allow the players to switch to a different mech of the same class after you find out which map you are on?

I would even be okay with this.

Edited by Finkledbody, 19 March 2015 - 09:38 AM.

[Tarogato]

If we could choose our maps, then it would divide the playerbase. I made a calculation about a week ago ... depending on how you measure Elo brackets and the balance between CW and standard matches, the percentage of the playerbase that is "a match" for any single open slot in any given solo queue match comes down to between 2% and 8%. Depending on how strict Elo matchmaking is, it could be even below 1%. Adding map restrictions on top of this would be a nightmare for the matchmaker and the quality of matches would decrease significantly as a result.

More player choice -> worse matchmaking
More fair matchmaking -> less player choice

Hotthedd, on 19 March 2015 - 08:28 AM, said:

How about instead of vetoing maps, allow the players to switch to a different mech of the same class after you find out which map you are on?

Because that would be min-max heaven and it completely disenfranchises mixed loadouts, which are already disadvantaged enough. If you want to min-max your loadouts to your maps, you can either play CW or private matches and community tournament events.

Edited by Tarogato, 19 March 2015 - 09:52 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Tarogato, on 19 March 2015 - 09:51 AM, said:

Because that would be min-max heaven and it completely disenfranchises mixed loadouts, which are already disadvantaged enough. If you want to min-max your loadouts to your maps, you can either play CW or private matches and community tournament events.

We already are in min/max heaven.
The absolute worst is the player that simply announces "I hate this map" and then abruptly disconnects.

I am with you that players should build a 'mech that can work regardless of the map, but there is really no in-game incentive for that when players can just quit the match.

At least if you can switch to a different 'mech once the map is decided, people can bring a more effective 'mech of the same class (on both teams).

It works with the fluff. A mechwarrior dropping on Terra Therma would probably bring a cooler running 'mech if he knew that is where the battle would be. He could take a longer ranged build if he knew the battle would be on Alpine. I cannot think of any instances in the BT universe where forces were dropped WITHOUT knowing basic intel of the battlefield.

Like you, Tarogato, I prefer to run a balanced build that can perform under any circumstances, but there will always be min/maxers in any video game. I would just rather see 2 teams with the opportunity that one team suddenly lose a brawler DW because that pilot hates Alpine...

[Tarogato]

Hotthedd, on 20 March 2015 - 07:05 AM, said:

We already are in min/max heaven.
The absolute worst is the player that simply announces "I hate this map" and then abruptly disconnects.

I am with you that players should build a 'mech that can work regardless of the map, but there is really no in-game incentive for that when players can just quit the match.

At least if you can switch to a different 'mech once the map is decided, people can bring a more effective 'mech of the same class (on both teams).

It works with the fluff. A mechwarrior dropping on Terra Therma would probably bring a cooler running 'mech if he knew that is where the battle would be. He could take a longer ranged build if he knew the battle would be on Alpine. I cannot think of any instances in the BT universe where forces were dropped WITHOUT knowing basic intel of the battlefield.

Like you, Tarogato, I prefer to run a balanced build that can perform under any circumstances, but there will always be min/maxers in any video game. I would just rather see 2 teams with the opportunity that one team suddenly lose a brawler DW because that pilot hates Alpine...

The problem becomes something like this:
Map upcoming: Alpine
- everybody switches to their long range variant
- every match plays out exactly the same because everybody always brings the same loadouts every time.

Gameplay could get stale very quickly since there's no longer any variety to mix it up.

---

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but if you want to consider lore, consider this: Battlemechs were very sophisticated and expensive machines that weren't routinely customised. Many pilots had only one or two 'mechs at their disposal - their personal 'mech. They took it with them everywhere to every fight and dropships couldn't afford to carry extra 'mechs on a mission just to cater to different environments nor could they afford to shuttle back and forth between systems to exchange 'mechs easily.

[Banditman]

I like it the way it is, even putting the matchmaking concerns aside. You already have the ability to create private matches where you can set the map to whatever you want. That seems like a more than adequate solution to me.

[Hotthedd]

Gameplay on certain maps is already pretty stale.

As far as the lore, you are correct that a mechwarrior had one or two mechs at his disposal, possibly more that belonged to his unit if he was lucky, but if a mercenary, he could choose his contract (map).

You have already fully explained how this is a bad idea in MW:O

But, even then, IF a unit took a contract where the battlefield would be hot, or cold, or engagement with the enemy would be long range or short range, they could and would either bring the best suited 'mechs, or refit some 'mechs in the weeks it would take to arrive on the embattled planet.

[Helaton]

I think this is a good idea, but for different reasons. If PGI has any metrics on their maps for quantity of people playing specific maps:

• Which maps players love
  
  • Determine features of future maps
• Which maps players do not want to play (Find out why)
  
  • Bad map design?
    
  • Bad map design for a specific game type? (Skirmish high player count, conquest low player account)
    
  • Bad map system performance? (low framerates due to weather/lighting)

When new maps come out, they can take the best attributes of existing maps.

I know I hope that when the Urbanmech comes out, I want to be able to play on city battlefields just to relive some of it. (sections of river city on the fortress side)

More Join Now Settings
Don't allow people to pick individual maps, but do let them pick an overall level of map by selecting between two map settings: (don't take the list at face value, its a concept)

Normal: Alpine Peaks, Canyon Network, Crimson Strait, Frozen City Night, HPG Manifold, Frozen Colony, Mining Collective, Tourmaline Desert
Expert: Viridian Bog, Caustic Valley, Rivery City Night, Frozen City Snow, Terra Therma, Forest Colony Snow

• Normal maps are primarily player vs player (environment can have no effect or positive effects for players - great to learn on)
  
• Expert maps are player vs player vs environment (environment has negative consequences such as movement, visibility, heat)

Maps are still random and you're more likely to get a drop faster if you keep all boxes checked. Give expert maps a small xp/cbill bonus (5%) for the preference of more difficult maps.

Achievements
Give achievements for both types of maps. Allow people turn on/off normal or expert maps in the same way you can turn on/off skirmish/assault/conquest modes.

Have achievements for maps played:

10x Normal Maps - 300 gxp
100x Normal Maps - 100k cbills
500x Normal Maps - 250k cbills
2500x Normal Maps - Cockpit Item/Mechbay/something cool
10000x Normal Maps - Title

(rinse and repeat for expert maps)

If a new player starts on River City Night as their first drop and mwo experience, I feel sorry for them. Let them open up to expert maps after their 25 cadet drops. If they are in a unit, they can drop wherever with their public group.
.