Jump to content


Map preference suggestion


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
19 replies to this topic

Poll: Map preference suggestion (15 members have cast votes)

Give us 'map preference' with re-roll, as described below?

  1. Yes, I want 'twin linked' map preference. (9 votes [60.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.00%

  2. No, the current system of 'what MM rolls is what you get' is fine. (5 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

  3. TANKS FOR THE TANK GOD!! SHELLS FOR THE SHELL THRONE!! (1 vote [6.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.67%

Vote Hide poll

Lert #1 Posted Nov 17 2012 - 14:15

    Major

  • Community Contributor
  • 37838 battles
  • 24,814
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010
For ages players have asked for an option to choose which maps to play, and WG have told us no.

I can see the reasons why, from both sides of the argument. Players prefer certain map types based on their playstyle and favorite vehicles, while WG wants to keep the game dynamic, and allowing players to exclude maps and / or map types from being played on would work against that. Plus, they've put effort into those maps, and seeing maps like Malinovka becoming an unplayed wasteland would simply put be a shame. Some players would only play on specific maps, all the time. I only need to think back to the UT / UT2004 days, where there were 24/7 servers playing only the 'Facing Worlds' map. Very boring.

So, there won't ever be a system where we can exclude maps from being played. But, let's shelve this thought for a moment, and talk about another hobby of mine:

Warhammer 40K

http://fondos-escrit...arhammer40k.jpg


Warhammer 40K is a tactical, futuristic tabletop wargame, played with plastic and resin miniatures on a table set with realistic .. ish terrain:

Posted Image

Each model, be they infantry, vehicle or 'monstrous creature', has  specific set of rules, governing what it can and cannot do. One of those rules that models can have, is called 'twin linked'.

How does 'twin linked' work? Well, if a model shoots at another model, the player rolls a D6, and the result of that D6 roll compared with the model's static 'ballistic skill' value determines whether the model has hit the target or missed it. A model with 'twin linked' may re-roll a failed to-hit roll. They may re-roll only once per failed shot, though.

This means that a model with 'twin linked' will be more likely to hit the target (after all, if there's a 50% likeliness of hitting the target and the player rolls statistically, he'll miss 50% of his shots. On the re-roll he'll hit 50% of those, meaning that in total he'll statistically hit 75% of his shots instead of 50%) but it's still possible to miss.

Why this explanation about the 'twin linked' rule, and how does it factor in to WoT and map type selection?

Simple: Allow us to set a preference for a map type (IE, desert, plains, mountains, city) and make it so that when selecting for example preference: city, we get the special rule 'twin linked' for rolling city maps.

How this would work:

Currently:

1) Player clicks 'battle'
2) MM rolls a dice to determine what map the player gets
3) Player spawns on that map

With 'twin linked':

1) Player clicks battle
2) MM rolls a dice to determine what map the player gets
3) MM rolls a map with 'desert' property, compares this to players preference list
4) Player has preference: city selected
5) MM re-rolls dice. Rolls 'city'.
6) Player gets onto a city map.

Ofcourse, the second roll is undisputable. If MM had re-rolled and got a 'mountains' result, the player would've ended up on a map with the 'mountains' property.

This would make it twice as likely for a player to end up on his preferred map type, while still allowing for enough chance to come on a map not preferred.

Playerbase happy, because they play their preferred map type more often. WG happy, because other maps still get played.

PS: I play Necrons. I started playing them when 5th edition was out for about a year or so.

AKG_Q701 #2 Posted Nov 17 2012 - 14:19

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14516 battles
  • 553
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011
Anything that means I dont have to play serene coast is good with me.

Lert #3 Posted Nov 17 2012 - 14:21

    Major

  • Community Contributor
  • 37838 battles
  • 24,814
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010
You'd be able to select by type of map. Serene Coast would fall under 'mountains' I think. So deselecting 'mountain' type maps will make you less likely to get on them. You'll still get them though.

AKG_Q701 #4 Posted Nov 17 2012 - 14:27

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14516 battles
  • 553
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostLert, on Nov 17 2012 - 14:21, said:

You'd be able to select by type of map. Serene Coast would fall under 'mountains' I think. So deselecting 'mountain' type maps will make you less likely to get on them. You'll still get them though.
That would be annoying, for example I like mountain pass, but not serene coast. Redshire, but not malinovka. Himmelsdorf, but not port. You get the picture. Maybe a list of maps that you would 'prefer' not to play, if enough people tick the same maps then those maps will be less likely to be chosen by the matchmaker.

SunFlash #5 Posted Nov 17 2012 - 14:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 14611 battles
  • 3,668
  • [_BA_] _BA_
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011
I normally agree with Lert, not today, though.

Most players prefer city maps, (arty excluded) and while I agree with them, I think that if certain maps are limited in rotation it limits them as a player.  Part of being a good tanker is to understand a situation and deal with it, more difficult if they play the map less.

In addition, I hate most maps when they come into the game.  After a month or so, I warm up to them.  However, how can you warm up to a map you've never spent any time on?

Tankerine #6 Posted Nov 17 2012 - 14:38

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 41468 battles
  • 489
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012
I think it is more realistic, challenging, and interesting to keep a wide variety of maps random like they are.

VonStryker #7 Posted Nov 17 2012 - 14:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 21692 battles
  • 2,949
  • [BULLS] BULLS
  • Member since:
    08-25-2011

View PostSunFlash, on Nov 17 2012 - 14:31, said:

I normally agree with Lert, not today, though.

Most players prefer city maps, (arty excluded) and while I agree with them, I think that if certain maps are limited in rotation it limits them as a player.  Part of being a good tanker is to understand a situation and deal with it, more difficult if they play the map less.

In addition, I hate most maps when they come into the game.  After a month or so, I warm up to them.  However, how can you warm up to a map you've never spent any time on?

same opinion as that guy ^  :Smile-hiding:

Gabo #8 Posted Nov 17 2012 - 14:45

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 12921 battles
  • 265
  • [FGTVE] FGTVE
  • Member since:
    09-30-2010
Lert, +1 for 40k reference
i want to add something for you, lets say there are 15 maps, each player gets 30 points to apply to the map list, one point means that map would probably not be played and 5 points means that map has a lot of chance to get picked, now heres the kick, the maps you choose the most will give you less xp while the map you "block" will give you more xp than a regular map.
This will let you pick the map you like to play, encourage even picking and reward you every time you play a map you dont like

Abject_McDeath #9 Posted Nov 17 2012 - 14:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 24721 battles
  • 4,115
  • Member since:
    03-26-2012
i would like this.
because i love getting Dragon Ridge every other game.
i mean yes WG i know you reworked it.
but please. a tad bit overkill.

Edited by Abject_McDeath, Nov 17 2012 - 14:52.


GenPanzer #10 Posted Nov 17 2012 - 14:55

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27310 battles
  • 1,770
  • [JIMBO] JIMBO
  • Member since:
    08-15-2011
This would require a huge rewrite of MM as MM currently picks the map first, iirc. There is no roll for the player to determine the map.

Gabo #11 Posted Nov 17 2012 - 14:57

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 12921 battles
  • 265
  • [FGTVE] FGTVE
  • Member since:
    09-30-2010
Also, Baneblade and Leman Russ
http://www.warseer.c...ner_873x627.jpg

NiteDog #12 Posted Nov 17 2012 - 15:40

    Captain

  • Players
  • 19526 battles
  • 1,735
  • Member since:
    08-09-2011
Here's another point of view: In a reversed universe, we get to choose the map and WG gets to choose the tank we use in battle.

Blackhorse_Three #13 Posted Nov 17 2012 - 15:40

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 1666 battles
  • 259
  • [2_11] 2_11
  • Member since:
    08-02-2011

View PostVonStryker, on Nov 17 2012 - 14:45, said:

same opinion as that guy ^  :Smile-hiding:


pokecheckartz #14 Posted Nov 17 2012 - 16:13

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8257 battles
  • 114
  • Member since:
    08-31-2012
I like this suggestion, and would endorse it due to the fact that it would give you, the player, the option (I like options)...if you didn't want you would not need to enable it...one way would be to work it along the same lines as camo...up to the probs of desert type maps and lower the prob of winter and summer...or whatever...

pcope #15 Posted Nov 17 2012 - 16:59

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 3165 battles
  • 51
  • Member since:
    09-15-2010
I like the Twin Linked option, but I'd also add a fourth option: Player Veto.

One of the things I've seen from a number of online FPS's (mostly the Call of Duty series) is the ability for the players in a lobby to veto the next map. Typically this power requires a simple majority, and after one map is vetoed, the next map is what you get whether you like it or not.

Lert #16 Posted Nov 17 2012 - 17:26

    Major

  • Community Contributor
  • 37838 battles
  • 24,814
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010
I don't see how a veto system would work, as you're not informed by MM what the next map would be.

pokecheckartz #17 Posted Nov 17 2012 - 20:13

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8257 battles
  • 114
  • Member since:
    08-31-2012
Please forgive me on 3 fronts:

a) I had a thought...
b) I am shamefully trying to pad my post count stats...that ups my effeciency rating...don't it? =P
c)  I am a math major and am going to subject you to painful math instruction (but I think it is necessary to make my point)

So...there are, believe it or not, different kinds of randomness...primarily "random selection WITH replacement" and "random selection WITHOUT replacement"...

WITH: this is like rolling a die, or say a bag has six billiard balls, 1 through 6....1/6 odds any given ball can be picked....you pick one see what it is and put it back in the bag...next draw same odds for all balls, 1/6.  Unless I am mistaken (I could probably find it in the WIKI but meh) this is the way the maps are selected and it can lead to maps being played repeatedly..."...oh GOD, not Himmelsdorf....AGAIN"....I had a lot repeated maps last night for example...kind of got old...

WITHOUT:  same bag and balls as above...1st draw, any given ball 1/6 chance...you draw "5"...set it aside...next draw, 1/5 odds for 1,2,3,4 or 6...you pull "2"...set it aside...next draw u have 1/4 chance to draw 1,3,4, or 6....you get the drift...

Map selection could be done purely in the "without" replacement mode so that until you had played through all eligible maps for said selected tank you would not have a map repeated...you could also combine the two methods where if you work through half the maps in "without replacement" then they are all "replaced", shaken (not stirred), and you start over...this could be combined with Lert's "weighting preferred maps" option.  Obviously there are various options to it and whether or not it is feasible for the devs to implement, et cetera, et cetera....but I was compelled to share!

Billymays #18 Posted Nov 17 2012 - 23:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 10606 battles
  • 4,193
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011
Warhammer 40k? NEEEEEEEERRRRRDDDD!!
It's okay lert, nerds are sexy <3

Also, i agree with the idea. Anything that'll keep my slow tanks out of dragon ridge and my high manuverability tanks on dragon ridge c:

D8W2P4 #19 Posted Nov 20 2012 - 07:15

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 20365 battles
  • 323
  • Member since:
    03-11-2012
Or an even better option have a simple percentage slider for getting maps kinda like how in SSBB it had a slider for how often certain pieces of music played on stages.

Now for those who may say:

"But what if they make new maps and people auto turn it down to minimum?"

They have minimum requirements for the Encounter/ASSault modes to be toggled,have something like a minimum number of times a map needs to be played before you can tweak the percentages of seeing it.

"But soldiers irl couldn't pick and choose where they wanted to go."

This is a game,you know something you do for fun not something that makes you want to flip a table.

"But it will lengthen time taken to get in a match."

I have yet to see the live game MM EVER take longer than 10 seconds to get me in a match (I'm on the NA server so don't give me that bull about how few people are on here),only on the test server did it even hit 1 minute and that was because I was checking out a low tier tank while everybody else was playing in tier 10s.

r4y #20 Posted Nov 20 2012 - 21:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 2766 battles
  • 2,111
  • Member since:
    08-04-2012
Needless to say I would turn off Malinovka, no matter what.  Anytime I decide to  screw around at Tier I and I get Malinovka, half of the time it consists of 13 minutes of sitting around while nothing happens, then one side decides to push and gets slaughtered, leaving just enough to still defend their side; draw.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users