Limit Releases of Maps

[WingWalker]

Have the DEVs thought about releasing less maps per release, but doing relases more often where the maps change?

I'm actually sick of this collection of maps that we never get to play, for whatever reason you think that is.

I played Masirah the other day, it is a great map, with a nice variety of fighting areas. Then I realized that I've only played it maybe once before, ever.

There are really so many maps that you hardly get to see one you really want, and if you do, its all new to you still and you don't really know what is where yet.

[BigBigMonkeyMan]

I agree with this. There are 68 maps. I play regularly and some maps it has been over a month since I have played, so for people who don't played regularly I doubt they have seen even half of these maps. I understand server population dictates this a lot, but damn I want to play these maps people have worked hard on. Newer maps generally get better and better, but some don't get played as much as they should past the first month of release.

Putting 15 maps in rotation at a time for two-three weeks at a time, then releasing an update with 15 different maps for 2-3 weeks until all maps have been played. Then start a new rotation with new/updated maps and content or something. Most video games like Squad, Hell Let Loose, BF only play a maximum of 10 maps, most even less. I would gladly be limited to 15 maps if it meant no longer playing Fallujah or Muttrah or Khamisiya (all great maps!) almost every play session. Militia Fortress on Fool's Road is such a fun flag to fight over and I think everyone should get to do that. It is the only structure of its kind in PR and I bet fewer than 15% of the player base has ever been in a situation where they get to fight over it.

15 maps in rotation every 3 weeks. Five INS maps, five 2k maps, three 4k+, two 1k maps. Skirmish/gun game maps all fair game for seeding.

[InfantryGamer42]

I do not think you need to force this with updates. Servers and there administration are more then capable of selecting 15-20 map rotations every two to three weeks. This should be server policy, not game policy.

[WingWalker]

I would like to know from a DEV though how much of a workload this idea would be, is it at least practical and not a problem to rotate map packs, or would it require so much time that it would drag down the team?

Originally Posted by InfantryGamer42

Servers and there administration are more then capable of selecting 15-20 map rotations every two to three weeks.

Since when?

The server/s are the reason that you never see certain maps. They have their polices or standards they fallow.

If there were more than a few servers and they ran a variety of maps, it might be a different story.

[InfantryGamer42]

Originally Posted by WingWalker

Since when?

Since forever.

Originally Posted by WingWalker

The server/s are the reason that you never see certain maps. They have their polices or standards they fallow.

Ah, we will completely disagree on that point, as servers play what people like. Reason why we never see certain maps is playerbase which on one side would play INS 24/7, while on other side would play Khamy 24/7. Of course while statement is exaggeration, point is that maps are usually less played for reason. They either have high skill (or teamwork) requirement to be played, they are unbalanced for some reason (map layer, assets etc.), they are 1km map (which usually do not play greatest on full server imo), they are just unenjoyable from gameplay perspective etc.

Originally Posted by WingWalker

If there were more than a few servers and they ran a variety of maps, it might be a different story.

Maybe, maybe not. If servers would go with 15-20 map rotations, DEVs would also need to use downtime to fix issues that pop up with those maps while in rotations. And those issue have potential to cause uproar in community (specially combined with map selection for rotation). And that leads us to important question, how would maps be selected?

[BigBigMonkeyMan]

I would trust the developers to pick the maps. A rough breakdown of maps by size alone is this (INS are those maps played as INS rounds instead of AAS the majority of the time and those with only INS layers):

4k+ = 29% (20 maps)
2k = 41% (28 maps)
1k = 12% (8 maps)
INS = 18% (12 maps)

They can be broken down any other number of ways, such as by era (historical vs. modern), by primary factions, win rates by certain sides using https://prstats.tk/ data I think, presence of jets, things like that. I enjoy most maps, so for me the only really important metric is map size. We are also forgetting that each map has multiple layers, factions, and flag layouts. The Khamisiyah layer where MEC is already stuck at Al-Khadir sucks and plays differently than the one where MEC controls the bunkers area. 15 maps for 3-4 weeks is still a huge amount of gameplay variety.

Also maybe people dislike certain maps because they have only played them twice and got steamrolled both times, so playing a map more often could get more people to like it with an increased sample size of rounds played on that map.

[Outlawz7]

Originally Posted by Coalz101

Look at Kassel for example it still gets played alot months after release

It was released a month ago.

Originally Posted by BigBigMonkeyMan

The Khamisiyah layer where MEC is already stuck at Al-Khadir sucks and plays differently than the one where MEC controls the bunkers area.

Khami was changed last month, too.

[Brotherscompany]

Originally Posted by InfantryGamer42

Ah, we will completely disagree on that point, as servers play what people like. Reason why we never see certain maps is playerbase which on one side would play INS 24/7, while on other side would play Khamy 24/7. Of course while statement is exaggeration, point is that maps are usually less played for reason. They either have high skill (or teamwork) requirement to be played, they are unbalanced for some reason (map layer, assets etc.), they are 1km map (which usually do not play greatest on full server imo), they are just unenjoyable from gameplay perspective etc

This is a pretty good argument.

There are maps that aren't played for some reason, they are simply not balanced or require certain degrees of teamwork that we can access that are not doable when one team is stomping other, or when you dont have competent people in the teams why force those maps and result in a disaster where only 1 team or group of people has fun for the sake of variety? I understand you guys that you want variation but we know from experience some stuff won't work we already tried, much better to go with something that everyone can enjoy during 50min

You are bound to see the same maps over and over because people vote for the same stuff over and over and striving for map variation in the MV results a lot of time in having the popular map being chosen, on the other hand you van vary your MV all you want Saarema has to eventually appear in there and it will win

Honestly instead of having 3 maps in the vote only having 2 would make sure you see a lot more map variation but this also gives a lot of power on the admin to rig the vote (l know l would certainly do so in order to get X map to be played be it for personal reasons or to force variety), what if both maps that l choose have bad gameplay and you cant escape by voting on the 3rd map. No perfect solution for a complex issue

[Outlawz7]

Originally Posted by Brotherscompany

There are maps that aren't played for some reason

Such as?

[[R-DEV]Mats391]

The amount of work would be annoying for both the DEV team and the admins that have to reset their map lists. I agree with InfantryGamer that this is better done as a server/community thing. In the past we had servers that ran fixed map lists at least once a week. That would probably be a good start to get going.