64 replies to this topic

[Vincefeld]

Ditch map voting and instead give option to ban 3 maps so you never get in random queue there.

Its a giant waste of time before every game in addition to loading times, connecting and waiting for players.

[GARION26]

Not knowing what map you are going to get, but increasing influence each time you are 'disappointed' in the poll results is actually in my opinion a pretty elegant way to encourage build balance and satisfy players who are hoping for specific maps.

Lets say it's random chance you still eventually will get 8 Mining collective in a row by dumb luck. But with each sequential game on a map you don't want you won't have an increasing chance to sway the vote to something you like. That will 'feel worse' I think then having some chance to influence the vote, and arguably may be more common.

[East Indy]

If map voting is removed, the only change will be that when random chance drops you in Mining Colony for the 6th time, you don't have a vote multiplier. Back in the day, players complained all the time and tantrum quits were actually fairly common.

Try accelerating multipliers, so you only need 5 losses before your 12x (1x, 3x, 6x, 9x, 12x).

(I do like Vee0t Dragon's idea of curbing trends but that's probably way out of PGI's league.)

[Dauntless Blint]

One day in MWO-2 they will have procedurally generated maps, one day... never play the same map ever.

[SCRAPMETAL99]

ONE IDEA FROM ME ISD TO MAKE IT SO THAT IF WE BPLAY A MAP IT DOESNT EVEN SHOW UP IN THE NEXT SELECTION pain in the butt playing polar 2 or more times in a row

[Alan Hicks]

Get rid of map voting?.. eh, no

Current system just need some change so that the same undesired map wont appear that much.

[PocketYoda]

Meep Meep, on 23 April 2021 - 04:45 PM, said:

You already get plenty of time to grab some refreshment because you don't have to pick anything. Just make sure to be back before the match starts.

Of course i do.. unless its polar.

[VeeOt Dragon]

i haven't seen Polar back to back since back when they were doing changes to LRM a few years back. before that and after things settle it went back to seeing Polar every once in a while. hell most days i might see polar pop up once a day maybe twice. (i honestly like the map even when not playing a long range sniper or LRM mech. its a nice change from the "circle around big central feature" play (though if you get Domination you get "ring around a dish"). could use more open maps like Polar, maybe a hot one like Terra Therma, or even a lunar one like HPG (especially if they did heat right and the lunar maps would have the worst heat dissipation, why do you think the space station has those massive cooling vanes. its because heat is harder to dispute in a vacuum)

Edited by VeeOt Dragon, 26 April 2021 - 11:08 PM.

[Hindenhoot]

FupDup, on 23 April 2021 - 12:38 PM, said:

Just make the sucky maps suck less and people might actually want to play on them.

martian, on 23 April 2021 - 10:49 PM, said:

PGI said that we might get one new map (maybe).

From the NGNG interviews with Daeron and Francois, I believe the plan is to revisit existing maps and correct issues with them first before any new maps come out.

IMO that's a much better path with much better bang for buck for the quality of the game. Part of the reason we have maps that go unplayed is that they haven't been edited since being added to the game, no matter how bad they might be.

I believe Canyon and Mining are first as they have simpler issues, before moving onto maps with more fundamental problems. I think the Canyon update was slated for the May patch.

[FupDup]

Dahoota, on 26 April 2021 - 11:36 PM, said:

From the NGNG interviews with Daeron and Francois, I believe the plan is to revisit existing maps and correct issues with them first before any new maps come out.

IMO that's a much better path with much better bang for buck for the quality of the game. Part of the reason we have maps that go unplayed is that they haven't been edited since being added to the game, no matter how bad they might be.

I believe Canyon and Mining are first as they have simpler issues, before moving onto maps with more fundamental problems. I think the Canyon update was slated for the May patch.

Canyon and Mining are already pretty good maps though and this is reflected by how often they get voted for. Bad maps that people hate to play on should be prioritized for changes.

[Maugged]

Dahoota, on 26 April 2021 - 11:36 PM, said:

I believe Canyon and Mining are first as they have simpler issues, before moving onto maps with more fundamental problems. I think the Canyon update was slated for the May patch.

What issues exactly?

FupDup, on 27 April 2021 - 03:01 AM, said:

Canyon and Mining are already pretty good maps though and this is reflected by how often they get voted for. Bad maps that people hate to play on should be prioritized for changes.

This. The most played maps are the most played because they allow everyone to play however they want to play. From Snipers who can snipe to brawlers who can brawl, passing through light mechs who can lightmech and assaults who can assault etc...

[McGoat]

An inclusion that i've often thought about that would allow map voting would be locking your weight class, or chassis, but allowing you to select the build for the map from your saved configurations (or mech within the class).

This of course has two sides, as, say, Polar Highlands could have a team coordinate a narc/lrm setup that would make the match unfun for some, but that also points to... *gasp* Coordination.
This would help that poor DWF who has 1487 ERMICRO on Alpine Peaks in that he can now change to his 1ERPPC 3LRM15s
Imagine a QP match where you could actually coordinate during the prelobby in your short 1min time and drop with a proper build for the map.

Edited by McGoat, 27 April 2021 - 08:34 AM.

[Maugged]

McGoat, on 27 April 2021 - 08:33 AM, said:

An inclusion that i've often thought about that would allow map voting would be locking your weight class, or chassis, but allowing you to select the build for the map from your saved configurations (or mech within the class).

This of course has two sides, as, say, Polar Highlands could have a team coordinate a narc/lrm setup that would make the match unfun for some, but that also points to... *gasp* Coordination.
This would help that poor DWF who has 1487 ERMICRO on Alpine Peaks in that he can now change to his 1ERPPC 3LRM15s
Imagine a QP match where you could actually coordinate during the prelobby in your short 1min time and drop with a proper build for the map.

Locked chassis but with the ability to chose what build you want to use depending on the map. I like it. It gives a bit of flexibility but not too much.

[Hindenhoot]

FupDup, on 27 April 2021 - 03:01 AM, said:

Canyon and Mining are already pretty good maps though and this is reflected by how often they get voted for. Bad maps that people hate to play on should be prioritized for changes.

Maugged, on 27 April 2021 - 04:57 AM, said:

What issues exactly?


This. The most played maps are the most played because they allow everyone to play however they want to play. From Snipers who can snipe to brawlers who can brawl, passing through light mechs who can lightmech and assaults who can assault etc...

It's simple stuff on those two I believe. On Canyon they mentioned clearer information design on where you can and can't climb the canyon walls as the big stand out issue - makes it a tough map for new players who get stuck and spend 20 seconds trying to climb parts it looks like you should be able to climb but can't or have to do a zigzag shimmy up. They also mentioned potentially adding bridges on certain points towards the centre for more dynamic movement paths and reworking the line of site obstacles topside.

On Mining I recall they mentioned minimal changes but namely the issue of imbalanced line of sight in the top centre - meaning one side is more exposed than the other.

They also discussed wanting to alter maps that encourage nascar behaviour, with Rubelite Oasis being mentioned as the ideal for what a map should be in terms of the more diverse kinds of gameplay it encourages.

Edited by Dahoota, 28 April 2021 - 01:35 AM.

[Maugged]

Dahoota, on 28 April 2021 - 01:32 AM, said:

It's simple stuff on those two I believe. On Canyon they mentioned clearer information design on where you can and can't climb the canyon walls as the big stand out issue - makes it a tough map for new players who get stuck and spend 20 seconds trying to climb parts it looks like you should be able to climb but can't or have to do a zigzag shimmy up. They also mentioned potentially adding bridges on certain points towards the centre for more dynamic movement paths and reworking the line of site obstacles topside.

On Mining I recall they mentioned minimal changes but namely the issue of imbalanced line of sight in the top centre - meaning one side is more exposed than the other.

They also discussed wanting to alter maps that encourage nascar behaviour, with Rubelite Oasis being mentioned as the ideal for what a map should be in terms of the more diverse kinds of gameplay it encourages.

Ok. Thanks for the reply. Not a fan of rubelite though. I call it rubbishlite.

[DAEDALOS513]

agreed.. get rid of map voting

[ScrapIron Prime]

Every post prior to 3 November 2015... why can't we vote for maps, OMG!

Every post after 3 November 2015... why do we have to vote for maps, OMG!

[DAEDALOS513]

ScrapIron Prime, on 04 May 2021 - 10:39 AM, said:

Every post prior to 3 November 2015... why can't we vote for maps, OMG!

Every post after 3 November 2015... why do we have to vote for maps, OMG!

If only there was some way to put it up for a vote.. hmm

McGoat, on 27 April 2021 - 08:33 AM, said:

An inclusion that i've often thought about that would allow map voting would be locking your weight class, or chassis, but allowing you to select the build for the map from your saved configurations (or mech within the class).

This of course has two sides, as, say, Polar Highlands could have a team coordinate a narc/lrm setup that would make the match unfun for some, but that also points to... *gasp* Coordination.
This would help that poor DWF who has 1487 ERMICRO on Alpine Peaks in that he can now change to his 1ERPPC 3LRM15s
Imagine a QP match where you could actually coordinate during the prelobby in your short 1min time and drop with a proper build for the map.

Yes that's all we need.. an lrm and ppc fest every time we get a range map.. it would utterly destroy the game.. no thx

The brawl matches on alpine, polar, etc have been the most memorable for me.. win or lose.. can't say the same for lrm/ppc matches..

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 04 May 2021 - 11:03 AM.

[pbiggz]

DAEDALOS513, on 04 May 2021 - 11:02 AM, said:

Yes that's all we need.. an lrm and ppc fest every time we get a range map.. it would utterly destroy the game.. no thx

The brawl matches on alpine, polar, etc have been the most memorable for me.. win or lose.. can't say the same for lrm/ppc matches..

Yeah im calling you on that. A big part of mechwarrior in the past was fitting your mechs based on the environment you were going into. Cool builds for hot biomes. Ranged builds for wide open spaces, brawlers for cities, etc.

That kind of planning is completely lost in mwo, because you cant alter your mech choices before a match, AND environmental effects have been nerfed down to like 5% of their original effect.

Letting people choose builds meant to perform on a certain map would add alot of diversity and alot of decision making AND allow teams to coordinate before a match to figure out what needs to be brought. A big part of old school comp gameplay was balancing the team's loadouts to complement one another, and that is completely not present in current quickplay.

I fully reject any suggestion that a dropdeck or pre-match lobby would reduce the quality of the game. You're just scared of the idea of change, since the game has changed so little for so many years, and in the past the changes were not good. We need to be asking for more, and better, not the same, or less because we're cynical about PGI.

[DAEDALOS513]

pbiggz, on 04 May 2021 - 11:15 AM, said:

Yeah im calling you on that. A big part of mechwarrior in the past was fitting your mechs based on the environment you were going into. Cool builds for hot biomes. Ranged builds for wide open spaces, brawlers for cities, etc.

That kind of planning is completely lost in mwo, because you cant alter your mech choices before a match, AND environmental effects have been nerfed down to like 5% of their original effect.

Letting people choose builds meant to perform on a certain map would add alot of diversity and alot of decision making AND allow teams to coordinate before a match to figure out what needs to be brought. A big part of old school comp gameplay was balancing the team's loadouts to complement one another, and that is completely not present in current quickplay.

I fully reject any suggestion that a dropdeck or pre-match lobby would reduce the quality of the game. You're just scared of the idea of change, since the game has changed so little for so many years, and in the past the changes were not good. We need to be asking for more, and better, not the same, or less because we're cynical about PGI.

I can guarantee that most people would take lrms and ppcs on every range map. If you play faction warfare you would see I'm right. Good players and bad alike choose them. Rangy PPC's are already the moist choice weapon atm that work no matter the map.. imagine when you know the map.. lol

I'm from the school that says 'i will make my build work no matter the map using good positioning, comms and skill..' This is how i've gotten good at this game.. by playing all builds/all chassis/clan and IS and WITHOUT VOTING.

If most of your team is brawl on polar.. indeed try to coordinate with them and position/attack accordingly. I've had many epic brawl wins on alpine/polar.. That goes for any map.. team coordination is key.. not so much loadouts. There is absolutely no need to ruin the game by allowing choosing mechs based on map. Even caustic would be ruined by lurms.. screw that

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 04 May 2021 - 11:30 AM.