BLOOD WOLF, on 11 April 2017 - 01:23 PM, said:
Keep in mind we already have a big list of maps as it is. Not saying its a reason not to make more, but i guess the figured it was low priority. The skill tree some people see as necessary, which I am inclined to agree. The fact that it already exist doesn't mean the revamp will not be an new experience for a lot of people. I don't know what you mean by shoehorning it in means?. Of course they would put it for existing maps. Also they took the advice of putting it in FP maps where I think it will have a greater impact on gameplay. Dude, saying that the new tech is stuff we are already doing is kinda well.....er. You might as well say adding anything is most likely what we are already doing. What are you looking for?
as for the FP round table, talk to the guys PGI keeps inviting back, because they certainly are not inviting the "community", rather a few select number of people.
The shoehorning is in reference to trying to put domination on maps that are too small, or just don't make sense to have domination. Example: Do we need a domination AND skirmish mode for HPG? Really? What about domination on Crimson Straight? It forces everyone to fight in the same place they always fight anyway, because the map is not very good.
Though maybe they've already started to exclude maps, I can't think of a time when I've run escort on HPG or Mining Collective.
In any case, maps are something they can do to make the game more interesting. The veterans have memorized all the maps. They can do two things to increase variety. They could have a two part vote: 1 for game mode 2 for map (or vice versa) and they don't have to put four maps, they could put every map available to that game mode? Second, they could either reintroduce force map rotation OR make it so a person who plays a map has a decreased likelihood of getting that map again in the next few rounds. I don't know the math, but there must be a way to raise and lower probabilities like that.
Regarding maps, though, I believe they should have a new map EVERY MONTH. Whether the maps are PGI generated, or player generated (which could be playtested in private lobbies, and voted on in polls for inclusion if they're good). There's a pool of talent out here among the players that could do some of the work, and would gladly do it just for fun! Especially if people don't have to make maps so that all game modes don't work. Maps specifically set up for escort or domination would make those game modes very interesting, I think. Some maps may only be available in private lobbies too for players to use for their own scenarios, especially asymmetric ones.
As far as who they choose to speak to in the NGNG broadcasts, I was on the list, but didn't make the cut off for the FW round table (I was probably on a list with 50 other guys, right?? lol). Anyway, I listened to that whole thing, it was like 3 hours of them talking about buckets. I wanted to reach through the screen and strangle them. They were worried about how to reduce the amount of buckets - which I feel is exactly the opposite of what the game needs. We need more to do, and having more to do will bring more players. With FW, adding meaning and purpose to the fights, supply lines (6 v 6 or 8 v 8 raids that when won, reduce payouts to those too far from their supply base), reasons to PICK and fight for certain planets (maybe unlocking assets, or denying assets by controlling certain planets like tanks, VTOL's, srm infantry nests, MFB's, etc...), and a black market, where we can buy a clan or IS mech to drop with opposite of our faction's mechs. These kinds of things would make people play more. This is thinking outside of, and expanding the box.
I also think their is a major split between competitive minded and campaign minded players, which really forces PGI to take sides given the assets they have available. I think, because PGI created the box, it is easier to think inside that box, meaning competitive players get more attention. Balancing the game, new tech, new mechs, skill trees, fixing existing maps - these are all things that are low risk investments of time and energy AND PGI has lots of practice with it. I do believe PGI WANTS to do everything both camps want to do, and I KNOW Bombadil wants to expand CW to include the things I've mentioned above. I honestly think, though, that when PGI looks ALL the things they can do, they do the easy things first. They probably feel the pressure to put out new stuff all the time - and the mech packs are probably their chief source of income to allow them to do keep the development train going. They have a formula and breaking that formula is risky. But American auto manufacturers had a formula, and Detroit collapsed due to innovations from foreign markets, because they figure, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
What scares me the most is that they're hoping MW5 will make up for all they're lacking in this game. It scares me because what makes this game so fantastic, and a good part of why I keep playing, is the friendships I have made playing this game. Even if they have a coop mode in MW5, it's not going to be anything like what we have with big units fighting each other. It'll be a couple friends running through the campaign (which, BTW, is the feature I want more than any other in MW5). But that leads me back to my point. The relationships we make with teammates and opponents keep us playing. But the game has to evolve to continue to give us new reasons to play the same game, not reboxing old reasons. PGI MUST innovate!
And so, that's why this road map looks like putting new clothes on the same mannequin, when the mannequin needs is more arms, wings, and roller skates to keep us interested.
10
This topic is locked
(hopefully)
