67 replies to this topic

[BumbleBee]

I want new maps as much as anybody, possibly more than most, but they wont make the slightest difference unless voting is removed

[Coolant]

as a temporary fix until they release new maps, put the old maps back in rotation. You don't have to remove the new versions, just add the old ones too.

[HIGH LORD KIT FAWKS THE WATCHFUL]

Discussed before at one point, but remove voting for map, keep game mode choice, boost reward for doing objectives in any mode other than DM. Increase map count by sectioning off current maps and using the sections since half/three quarters of current big maps isn't even used, and include new maps with their own sections too.

I've suddenly turned a few maps into well over 30-40. Golly.

Done.

Edited by THE GOD KING URBIE LORD OF MECHS, 06 August 2017 - 05:51 PM.

[Valdarion Silarius]

I disagree with PGI cutting out new mechs for maps completely. It's been stated in many threads now that PGI makes their money off of new mechs, not maps. They would have to find a way to somehow monetize maps which IMO is a very bad idea. What they should be doing instead is allowing access for the community to make maps for them, and then running public polls on which maps that the community would like to see in the game. That way PGI can work on fields of the game that need improvement. It would help strengthen the relationship of the player base with the devs, and they wouldn't have to worry about losing man power and/or time on creating new maps. It's a win-win situation for everyone if you think about it.

[ocular tb]

THE GOD KING URBIE LORD OF MECHS, on 06 August 2017 - 05:50 PM, said:

Discussed before at one point, but remove voting for map, keep game mode choice, boost reward for doing objectives in any mode other than DM. Increase map count by sectioning off current maps and using the sections since half/three quarters of current big maps isn't even used, and include new maps with their own sections too.

I've suddenly turned a few maps into well over 30-40. Golly.

Done.

I think the only maps that could work for would be Forest Colony and maybe Alpine Peaks. In the case of Alpine Peaks, I find that a lot of the map does actually get used between all the different game modes. The problem is that it just doesn't get voted on that much. But Forest Colony I think is the best candidate for sectioning if PGI were to consider the idea.

Forest Colony has an entire section of beach that rarely gets seen let alone used as well as a section of forest that just barely gets used. Section off an area that focuses on the other beach (10 and 11 lines on the grid) and then have another that focuses only inside the forest. And my favorite suggestion is to bring back the original versions in addition to keeping the new and any sectioned off versions. As it is now, this is the map that I think has just too much wasted space.

Most of the other large maps don't have as much variety in terrain and features and wouldn't really add much by sectioning them off (Polar, Terra, Grim for instance). And of course some are just too small to section off and some are fine how they are.

Frozen City wouldn't need sectioned off if they brought back the original two versions. They played a lot differently than the new one and a lot of players I think would welcome them back into the rotation. Keep the new and add the old.

[Carl Vickers]

Arnold The Governator, on 06 August 2017 - 06:22 PM, said:

I disagree with PGI cutting out new mechs for maps completely. It's been stated in many threads now that PGI makes their money off of new mechs, not maps. They would have to find a way to somehow monetize maps which IMO is a very bad idea. What they should be doing instead is allowing access for the community to make maps for them, and then running public polls on which maps that the community would like to see in the game. That way PGI can work on fields of the game that need improvement. It would help strengthen the relationship of the player base with the devs, and they wouldn't have to worry about losing man power and/or time on creating new maps. It's a win-win situation for everyone if you think about it.

The above is a pretty short term view of things. Yes PGI needs to keep selling mechs to keep the lights on ect but when you get people leaving the game due to the boredom of not have any NEW maps for a very long time, the game becomes stagnant, people get bored and leave for other games.

Less people buying mechs = less cash and game stops development cause they cant afford it.

A good long term thought process is, yes, keep the mechs going, but new maps keep people playing, playing people want the newest and best mechs with dem high shoulder mounts. We should be releasing a new map every 3 months.

There is no reason to monetize maps, put out maps and people will continue to play and buy mech packs, thats how you keep the lights on and people happily buying mech packs.

Yet again, simple stuff from business 101.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

its like the Old B-Movies ..now we become a Mech/month like the Monster of the week in the same lowbudget Studios ...like the old Enterprise Enterprise -Bridge, and Aliens in Suits ..again ..and again ...and again

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 06 August 2017 - 08:00 PM.

[Shifty McSwift]

To be honest I think we would benefit much more and it would be much more efficient to just make lots of new game modes on the maps we have, particularly on the bigger maps having potential for different areas of contention in the modes we already have, as well as adding to the old modes and making new modes with the incursion destructible terrain.

Who cares if they all end up as skirmish, that is player choice driven anyway, at least try out some new and interesting modes and mix up the ones we already have that are stale.

Much less work, and much easier to just get rid of or not vote for if crappy.

[AssaultPig]

What do we want? Content!

When do we want it? Soon™!

[Valdarion Silarius]

Carl Vickers, on 06 August 2017 - 07:54 PM, said:

The above is a pretty short term view of things. Yes PGI needs to keep selling mechs to keep the lights on ect but when you get people leaving the game due to the boredom of not have any NEW maps for a very long time, the game becomes stagnant, people get bored and leave for other games.

Less people buying mechs = less cash and game stops development cause they cant afford it.

A good long term thought process is, yes, keep the mechs going, but new maps keep people playing, playing people want the newest and best mechs with dem high shoulder mounts. We should be releasing a new map every 3 months.

There is no reason to monetize maps, put out maps and people will continue to play and buy mech packs, thats how you keep the lights on and people happily buying mech packs.

Yet again, simple stuff from business 101.

Sure, if PGI can handle making newer maps that isn't at a snails pace. How many new maps have we received since the last year(s)? I don't think newer maps are a priority for PGI at the moment, since Russ threw out the idea of monetizing Solaris Arena to everyone at the last town hall with little positive reception from the listeners. This is exactly why the community should be in charge of creating new maps to keep the game fresh.

Also, it's not a matter of newer maps of why people are leaving this game either. It's only a part of the reason. It would be a better assumption to say that there is a severe lack of immersion of the Battletech universe in the game to begin with. Little things like more Battletech related objective game modes would help as well.

[Shifty McSwift]

AssaultPig, on 06 August 2017 - 08:51 PM, said:

Players mantra;
What do we want? Content!

When do we want it? Now!

Generic developer response;
Soon™!

hehe, FTFY

[Carl Vickers]

Arnold The Governator, on 06 August 2017 - 08:52 PM, said:

Sure, if PGI can handle making newer maps that isn't at a snails pace. How many new maps have we received since the last year(s)? I don't think newer maps are a priority for PGI at the moment, since Russ threw out the idea of monetizing Solaris Arena to everyone at the last town hall with little positive reception from the listeners. This is exactly why the community should be in charge of creating new maps to keep the game fresh.

Also, it's not a matter of newer maps of why people are leaving this game either. It's only a part of the reason. It would be a better assumption to say that there is a severe lack of immersion of the Battletech universe in the game to begin with. Little things like more Battletech related objective game modes would help as well.

While I agree with most of what you say a snails pace is better than no pace, add to that, the 'community' has volunteered to help with map design which would potentially save PGI a big chunk on the development costs on maps but they dont want to.

PGI were only ever going to be able to do so much when it came to immersion in a PvP game, it really comes down to which team is better wins, thats the nature of PvP games.

Thats why I suspect that when MW5 comes out, MWO is going to have some serious population issues.

[Vellron2005]

If you ask me.. this game needs a minimum of 10 new maps, a.s.a.p.!

Personally, I would not care if the maps don't have all new terrain and textures..

Take the existing resources and mix it up.. Give me a River City / Crimson mashup, or forest / canyon mashup, or new maps with the same terrain as polar, or sulfurous, or caustic.. I don't care.. just give me lots of new maps..

Cose' no amount of new weapons or mechs can make up for the same old 5 maps we play day after day..

[MW Waldorf Statler]

news by Mechcon 2017 ...great news MW5 is coming like new Maps and IK in 2019 (when we find Guys to make it)

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 07 August 2017 - 02:31 AM.

[MrMadguy]

It's pointless. Why? Two things:
1) All recent maps are just terrible - nobody wants to play them. We don't need even more maps, nobody wants to play.
2) Map rotation consists of just 4-5 maps now anyway. What the point in having more maps, if PGI still will force same terrible ones on us?

Two things are needed instead:
1) Return old maps into rotation
2) Remove "force most unpopular maps" system and allow players to actually use vote system properly.

Optional:
3) Return 8v8 - 2/2/2/2 or even "no Lights" mode, like in old sweet days, when small maps were just perfect for slow Assaults and Heavies, matches were much slower and more enjoyable.

Edited by MrMadguy, 07 August 2017 - 03:31 AM.

[Weeny Machine]

MrMadguy, on 07 August 2017 - 03:08 AM, said:

Optional:
3) Return 8v8 - 2/2/2/2 or even "no Lights" mode, like in old sweet days, when small maps were just perfect for slow Assaults and Heavies, matches were much slower and more enjoyable.

In a lot of matches we already have a "no lights" mode already thanks to PGIs balancing

[Black Ivan]

I want new maps too, especially nice and interesting ones, BUT with MW5 scheduled for Mechcon I believe all map developers will be working on MW5 development

[MW Waldorf Statler]

the work of MW5 ..????many ?????

https://twitter.com/MW5Mercs

https://www.facebook.com/mw5mercs

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 07 August 2017 - 04:49 AM.

[Lostdragon]

Viktor Drake, on 06 August 2017 - 05:20 PM, said:

But isn't that how change is enacted? I mean if people don't speak up about something then now one knows there is an issue. Also if only one or two speak up, then it is dismissed as nothing of importance but if the entire community speaks up, it becomes something they need to address.

Take the premium time removal from the mech packs. If the community hadn't spoke up and if there hadn't been 100 threads about it, we would still not have premium time in our mech packs.

So what you call disruptive is a mechanism for change more often than not. Therefore I don't think there is a problem with with there being a dozen threads about a topic that has the community polarized and requesting changes.

Honestly, this is where I think mods generally go wrong, they mistake a cry for change as something disruptive and an action that much be shut down which in turn is usually viewed by the community as censorship. This of course leads to even more negativity from those who feel censored which now starts to lead to real disruption as people begin to feel like their opinions are being suppressed.

Being a mod is a tough job with alot of slippery slopes. I know it isn't a job I would want. Then again I probably wouldn't be offered it either hehe.

This. It has been historically proven time and again that the only things PGI takes seriously are rivers of tears, walls of flame, and cancelled pre-orders. If PGI cared enough about player feedback to take it seriously before it got to that point things would be a lot better around here. I will give them credit for rethinking their skill tree rollout and doing it in a manner that was more friendly to long time players, they need to learn from that and take PTS and other feedback seriously before it becomes a crap storm.

[HGAK47]

More maps with verticality to them for jump jetters! (think mining collective on steroids or soemthing) More maps with interesting areas to fight over.

Hell even the maps we have right now, a lot of them have areas that are never used. Frozen City - the old city part and the ice tunnel... damn I miss that so much.

How about huge levels like Alpine peaks or what ever its called - I have never even been to most of that map. Could PGI randomise spawn and objective locations? If the Domination circle moved for instance, that alone could make maps more fun.