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?

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.

[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.

[Coalz101]

Yeah, I don't think less maps will make us play the same maps more...I'd rather quit at that point if the gameplay on those maps weren't up to my personal PR standards.
I think you also failed to realize that whenever there is a new map, it gains alot of traction compared to updates on old maps. Look at Kassel for example it still gets played alot months after release alongside Falcon, Carentan, Thunder etc. Those maps all have great gameplay compared to others like (AAS SPECIFICALLY, INS is fine) Ras el Masri, Outpost, Merville, Brecourt (To an extent, it needs a layer like Carentan LRG), Masirah (To an extent aswell, half of the map feels wasted).

[BigBigMonkeyMan]

I didn't convey my reasoning for wanting it to be developer/game side rather than just server side. If it was server admin side, sure a HOG admin would make a post here, on their forums as well and all the current players would see it. They would probably do a green text post during an actual round. But if it was developer side, anyone coming to realitymod.com website would see something enticing on the home page like "New PR map season release in 3 weeks" or some shit like that with a countdown idk. It is proven that the player-base grows (at least temporarily) every time there is a new release.

Different maps feature different factions/weapons/vehicles as well so this could be bundled up as well. Maybe no maps with Germany as their primary blufor faction until the next release. This creates excitement and makes people want to come back and see what is new. No new content even has to be created necessarily, but this would put less pressure on Devs to release a single update with a ton of new content. If one of you guys (Devs) wants to add a new weapon or vehicle variant, it wouldn't seem unusual or a waste to include it in a small update. But if nothing new is created, the simple change of map rotation would create this effect of new content.

Yes server admins are capable of making game changing server rules, Ex. the HOG experiment with making DoD fair game to shoot into/out of. But if it were a top-down decision and change, more players would come in necessitating additional servers in other places.

[InfantryGamer42]

Since when?

Since forever.

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.

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]

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

It was released a month ago.

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.

[BigBigMonkeyMan]

Nice! Point still stands that different layers of the same map play differently, so limiting the maps in rotation to 15 for a time period still offers huge variety in gameplay.

[BigBigMonkeyMan]

Bump because still great idea (imho)

[Frontliner]

I don't believe this idea of limiting the variety in maps accumulated over the years is something we want to force ourselves to do as Mats has already hinted at. I do not see anyone among the team willing to play the Arbiter of >this Release's< Map Pool or doing it as a collective, we'd just be pissing off players as there is no way to come up with something everyone can agree on. I mean, let's face it, OP and you don't even agree on having the entire pool available with the rest of the player base.

Mats' suggestion on bringing it to the attention of the server owners to maybe be a little bit more considerate in the map voting options, and to not constantly rotate between Burning, Khami, Saaremaa, Grozny, Falcon in no particular order. With that being said however, it is my belief that many(not all) of the popular maps are also the ones that are well-balanced for all styles of play, and are thus prefered over some of the others for a reason.

[sweedensniiperr]

Bring back set maplist evenings. It was so good.

Also remove mapvoting

[Coalz101]

Bring back set maplist evenings. It was so good.

Also remove mapvoting

Yeah if I have to play a maplist filled with boring maps every evening I rather not play, what's the point, we won't beable to go through all the maps in the list nor will we be playing more than 6 of the 50+ maps in PR at any given day that the maplist runs

[InfantryGamer42]

Yeah if I have to play a maplist filled with boring maps every evening I rather not play, what's the point, we won't beable to go through all the maps in the list nor will we be playing more than 6 of the 50+ maps in PR at any given day that the maplist runs

Pretty much this. If you go with set map list, you may as well limit number of maps in rotation to make it actually work.

[BigBigMonkeyMan]

I would love that maplist day type of thing, but I don't think it would have the desired affect because many people only hop on for 2-3 rounds a play session so maps would still go un-played. A longer period of restricted maps would make sure every map gets played.

however, it is my belief that many(not all) of the popular maps are also the ones that are well-balanced for all styles of play, and are thus prefered over some of the others for a reason.

And if every map is played more often, maps that are historically less balanced can be tweaked over time once they are out of rotation for the months or weeks after they have been played. The diversity of factions, vehicles, weapons, and flag layouts (also possibility of new off map airfields) could balance these maps that maybe seem unbalanced currently.

I do sympathize with you about the team not wanting to be the map rotation arbiters under the inevitably that it would piss of some people who don't get to play their favorite map, but I still think the outcome would be overall positive for the game by increasing playerbase, using all the maps to their full potential. I mean if people are disappointed that they can't play their favorite map, they can always check back after a couple of weeks if they are that adamant about not wanting to play unless they can go on Hind killing sprees of insurgents.

[Coalz101]

I mean if people are disappointed that they can't play their favorite map, they can always check back after a couple of weeks if they are that adamant about not wanting to play unless they can go on Hind killing sprees of insurgents.

Yeah but at this point you're limiting the playerbase. No one should have to wait weeks just to play 1 map specific map for it to be followed up by some boring drawn out insurgency round at 7/8PM.

[BigBigMonkeyMan]

I doubt there are that many players who fall into the category I described (who won't play unless they can play their favorite maps). I think people play PR for the teamwork, communication, and combined arms systems that you don't get in any other games. The new feature of multiple factions being playable on a map opens up even more possibilities of gameplay.

[Brotherscompany]

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