23 replies to this topic

[Marduk10]

More than new tanks, I'd love to see some new maps.

If you are voting No, is it because you think WoT should give us maps for free or because you don't want new maps?

Edited by Marduk10, Jan 23 2013 - 18:46.

[Millardthemk]

Some new maps would be fun, yeah.

Add in moar city maps pl0x.

[LESTAT_SiK]

I really want to punch a kitten by the mere suggestion that we pay for new maps......this isn't battlefield or cod.

[scout_in_da_house]

Marduk10, on Jan 23 2013 - 18:42, said:

More than new tanks, I'd love to see some new maps.

If you are voting No, is it because you think WoT should give us maps for free or because you don't want new maps?

No because they have enough money ;)

[MedicOnDuty]

LESTAT_SiK, on Jan 23 2013 - 18:45, said:

I really want to punch a kitten by the mere suggestion that we pay for new maps......this isn't battlefield or cod.

That was the number 1 reason I gave up both: constant $15 DLC. For BF it was always worse because said DLC had new weapons that were obviously better than the weapons the game launched with, so the people that didn't buy the DLC essentially got forced to put up with weapons that were much stronger than anything they had. After Armored Kill I finally said "F#ck this" and left.

[warrends]

Didn't answer the poll. Already pay, and don't want to pay just for new maps. The last patch or 2 are the only ones in a LONG time that did not include new maps; very unusual.

And maps need a TON of testing playtime before they are implemented. Look at the changes WG has made to some of the maps already which were (supposedly) unbalanced (I honestly never saw any of that) or changes for physics (very significant). There is a map forum area in which anyone can post ideas for new maps, from text descriptions to simple drawings to all-out map renderings. But every one has to be developed and then tested endlessly. So use that section.

Side note: I do love Kickstarter ... great website.

[Rewdalf]

LESTAT_SiK, on Jan 23 2013 - 18:45, said:

I really want to punch a kitten by the mere suggestion that we pay for new maps......this isn't battlefield or cod.

That's why I'm here, playing tanks, instead of wasting $60 on a game that you have to keep buying in installments...

It makes me laugh when people say that buying a $50 tank on WoT is a "waste of money..."

[Marduk10]

scout_in_da_house, on Jan 23 2013 - 18:47, said:

No because they have enough money ;)

I believe in capitalism comrade. It takes a lot of work to make and balance a new map. Even if the community made a map, WoT would have to approve of it and that validation takes time. Who would pay the salary?

Right now, Map Creation is a tax imposed on by the people who buy gold for the benefit of all. As much as I am liberal in my politics, I would be perfectly happy to pay a couple bucks so WoT could hire a FULL TIME map maker. If we all (NA server alone) payed 1-2$ we could have a new map every month. How awesome would that be? Now since maybe 1/2 the people play free, the price goes up to 5$ or so. I'm just tossing random numbers about... but if you figure ~35K people on every night is about 50-60K people playing regularly, and a map makes isn't like a full time software engineer.... its more like a junior data tester/game tester person... 40-50K seems about right for an annual salary.

Add in the fact that .25c from every hardcore gamer on would EASLY cover  the additional 40-50K you need in overhead and benefits.... this seems like a win!


What do I know. I actually pay for the music  that Amanda Palmer lets me download for free.

[Kankou]

This is a pay for convenience game, not pay for content.

Get out.

[Nithydux]

I believe Wargaming could make alot of people happy if they somehow developed a Map Making Program the Community could Use.

People could then make maps, Submit them, Devs could look them over and consider them.

Eventually we would have lots more maps, and  a higher Variety at that.


But that's all in theory. I don't pay for the game much, but I have before.

People pay to make the game easier to play. That money gets our content.

[Marduk10]

MedicOnDuty, on Jan 23 2013 - 18:50, said:

That was the number 1 reason I gave up both: constant $15 DLC. For BF it was always worse because said DLC had new weapons that were obviously better than the weapons the game launched with, so the people that didn't buy the DLC essentially got forced to put up with weapons that were much stronger than anything they had. After Armored Kill I finally said "F#ck this" and left.

I get it. I'm not saying they should FORCE you to pay it... I think that would drive a lot of casuals away, and quite frankly you needs lots of hardcores and lots of casuals for a game to be successful. It would be a VOLUNTEER thing. I think if enough people dropped 5$ on it, we'd get new maps faster.

I want a new map more than I want a new premium tank. (I've got a SP, Church-III, T2LT, and a T1E6. Do I really need more?)

[LESTAT_SiK]

Marduk10, on Jan 23 2013 - 18:54, said:

I believe in capitalism comrade. It takes a lot of work to make and balance a new map. Even if the community made a map, WoT would have to approve of it and that validation takes time. Who would pay the salary?

Yet some folks find the time to make BETTER maps, free of charge, whilst running a clan, etc. Hell no to pay for maps. In all honesty, the game really does have quite a few maps to be honest. With the whining and crying that goes on, they are taking more out than putting them in. At some point, you simply must realize, some of you (ok, us) play so many games, so quickly that they could have 100 maps and we would find them all "old and boring".

[SeanPwnery]

Let's try to look at this objectively...

WG can't "pay" non-employees for content - one of the reasons there is no longer an NA Supertester crew.

WG can however do the following :

• Release a map builder SDK to allow modders the opportunity to create maps based on size, terrain/topographical features, obstacles, manmade objects
  
• Have user-submitted SDK-created maps uploaded in reviewable batches of 25-50 at a time, and tested by WG for inconsistancies, holes, track-traps that make you stuck etc.
  
• WG can present the top 3-5 entries a gold reward in a quarterly contest (that's top 3-5 winners every 3 months). This gives them essentially 12-25 new maps a year that they don't have to design themselves.

[QMP47]

I would pay for an arty free mode

[Marduk10]

SeanPwnery, on Jan 23 2013 - 19:01, said:

Let's try to look at this objectively...

WG can't "pay" non-employees for content - one of the reasons there is no longer an NA Supertester crew.

WG can however do the following :

• Release a map builder SDK to allow modders the opportunity to create maps based on size, terrain/topographical features, obstacles, manmade objects
  
• Have user-submitted SDK-created maps uploaded in reviewable batches of 25-50 at a time, and tested by WG for inconsistancies, holes, track-traps that make you stuck etc.
  
• WG can present the top 3-5 entries a gold reward in a quarterly contest (that's top 3-5 winners every 3 months). This gives them essentially 12-25 new maps a year that they don't have to design themselves.

I'm looking at this from the view of both a software developer AND a small business owner (farm)....

I love that idea, but like you say, they are going to have to go over that map. Likely, they ARE going to have to edit them. That costs time (money). There are 2 pots that money can come from:

1) Dedicated revenue stream of people who REALLY want new maps and are willing to pay some for it.
2) An invisible tax on your gold purchase.


You (not you Sean) realize that gold costs what it costs in this game in part so Jewel Thief can take home a paycheck..... right? I mean... she doesn't make my tank shoot. She doesn't make maps. She doesn't write code. But WoT feels she is an important part of the WoT experience, so they pay her. Contrary to Free SoftwareFoundations fuzzy headed thinking... that money has to come from somewhere. (This is not a slam on J_T in anyway. I'm not her boss and only they can evaluate if they are getting good value for their money. I'm just pointing out econ 101)

The other problem is that since the game is so completely server side.... I dunno how you test the maps before you submit them. I guess part of the SDK could be an offline client that is crippled in important ways to make it hard to figure out what is in the packets used to comm between server/client.

Edited by Marduk10, Jan 23 2013 - 19:13.

[Bitey001]

This game has been more than "monetized" enough.  Don't give WG a reason to nickel and dime people more.

[MilesCadre]

I'd pay a 5$ kickstarter for 2 things;

Making Maus either historically accurate in its armor thicknesses (Since most tier ten tanks have 240+mm penetration), or allowing it to mount the 15 cm

Or, Multigun support (like on the Lee, B1, Maus, E-100, etc)

Maps? Meh. I can live with the same old maps if one of the 2 above were implemented.

But thats me being greedy and whiney =P

[Warpig777]

I already pay for premium, so I should be covered in the pay for content department.

[ArmorStorm]

Marduk10, on Jan 23 2013 - 18:54, said:

I believe in capitalism comrade. It takes a lot of work to make and balance a new map. Even if the community made a map, WoT would have to approve of it and that validation takes time. Who would pay the salary?

Right now, Map Creation is a tax imposed on by the people who buy gold for the benefit of all. As much as I am liberal in my politics, I would be perfectly happy to pay a couple bucks so WoT could hire a FULL TIME map maker. If we all (NA server alone) payed 1-2$ we could have a new map every month. How awesome would that be? Now since maybe 1/2 the people play free, the price goes up to 5$ or so. I'm just tossing random numbers about... but if you figure ~35K people on every night is about 50-60K people playing regularly, and a map makes isn't like a full time software engineer.... its more like a junior data tester/game tester person... 40-50K seems about right for an annual salary.

Add in the fact that .25c from every hardcore gamer on would EASLY cover  the additional 40-50K you need in overhead and benefits.... this seems like a win!


What do I know. I actually pay for the music  that Amanda Palmer lets me download for free.

Your questionable taste in music aside, these guys IIRC were making 18 million per month last fall. If they don't wish to hire someone, they could at least focus more on new maps versus tank lines.

[Laurys]

I think 'pay for content' would set a bad precedent, so no, I wouldn't support such a thing.