Dice. There are too many maps.

Comments

  • GRIZZ11283
    3258 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited December 6
    HuwJarz wrote: »
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    There are too many modes too. Instead of Supply Drop and Pigeons and BAck to the BAsics...it would have been nice if they threw that design ability into tweaking Conquest for the better so matches don't drag on for 10 minutes after they are over. Put in a knock out condition so a team can knock the other team out and end the round instead of dragging it out. Or a mercy rule where the ref steps (in) and says No Mas. Less is more.

    Rather not have that.
    Sort the balancing and ticket bleed by making comebacks possible and that will sort things for the better.

    Why not have game ending conditions? What is your objection. Base raping games kill servers and are not fun for either team and really excruciating for the losing team.

    I agree about improving balancing. but why not have both?

    People already quit before the end matches, any sign of defeat and the server will lose players quicker than now, games will end up far too short and become more unbalanced quicker.
    Make comebacks possible then a mercy rule wouldn't be needed imo.
  • GRIZZ11283
    3258 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    HuwJarz wrote: »
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    There are too many modes too. Instead of Supply Drop and Pigeons and BAck to the BAsics...it would have been nice if they threw that design ability into tweaking Conquest for the better so matches don't drag on for 10 minutes after they are over. Put in a knock out condition so a team can knock the other team out and end the round instead of dragging it out. Or a mercy rule where the ref steps (in) and says No Mas. Less is more.

    Rather not have that.
    Sort the balancing and ticket bleed by making comebacks possible and that will sort things for the better.

    Why not have game ending conditions? What is your objection. Base raping games kill servers and are not fun for either team and really excruciating for the losing team.

    I agree about improving balancing. but why not have both?
    games will end up far too short and become more unbalanced quicker.

    Since there is no dynamic balancer and all balancing only takes places between rounds, I'd argue that shorter matches by some kind of mercy rule / end condition / surrender would (theoretically) increase the balance between teams. Frequency is key for balancing when you can't predict the future.

    Can't see it myself, I feel it will make matters worse.
    I don't want to play conquest and it be short matches like TDM, its a downgrade on what we currently have imo. win or lose, no mercy should be given, its giving an easy way out.

    But who's too know until/if it happens.
    Its certainly not an idea I could back.
  • HuwJarz
    2221 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    HuwJarz wrote: »
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    There are too many modes too. Instead of Supply Drop and Pigeons and BAck to the BAsics...it would have been nice if they threw that design ability into tweaking Conquest for the better so matches don't drag on for 10 minutes after they are over. Put in a knock out condition so a team can knock the other team out and end the round instead of dragging it out. Or a mercy rule where the ref steps (in) and says No Mas. Less is more.

    Rather not have that.
    Sort the balancing and ticket bleed by making comebacks possible and that will sort things for the better.

    Why not have game ending conditions? What is your objection. Base raping games kill servers and are not fun for either team and really excruciating for the losing team.

    I agree about improving balancing. but why not have both?

    People already quit before the end matches, any sign of defeat and the server will lose players quicker than now, games will end up far too short and become more unbalanced quicker.
    Make comebacks possible then a mercy rule wouldn't be needed imo.

    I agree about the comebacks thing......blended old conquest scoring, but there comes a point when enough is enough IMO.
  • Sir-Praise-a-lot
    257 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited December 6
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    HuwJarz wrote: »
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    There are too many modes too. Instead of Supply Drop and Pigeons and BAck to the BAsics...it would have been nice if they threw that design ability into tweaking Conquest for the better so matches don't drag on for 10 minutes after they are over. Put in a knock out condition so a team can knock the other team out and end the round instead of dragging it out. Or a mercy rule where the ref steps (in) and says No Mas. Less is more.

    Rather not have that.
    Sort the balancing and ticket bleed by making comebacks possible and that will sort things for the better.

    Why not have game ending conditions? What is your objection. Base raping games kill servers and are not fun for either team and really excruciating for the losing team.

    I agree about improving balancing. but why not have both?
    games will end up far too short and become more unbalanced quicker.

    Since there is no dynamic balancer and all balancing only takes places between rounds, I'd argue that shorter matches by some kind of mercy rule / end condition / surrender would (theoretically) increase the balance between teams. Frequency is key for balancing when you can't predict the future.

    Can't see it myself, I feel it will make matters worse.
    I don't want to play conquest and it be short matches like TDM, its a downgrade on what we currently have imo. win or lose, no mercy should be given, its giving an easy way out.

    But who's too know until/if it happens.
    Its certainly not an idea I could back.

    Don't get me wrong, comebacks should definitely be possible! But that would still require people to put in some effort and fight against the odds instead of leaving. Make it too easy and people will feel punished for winning.

    Btw I'm imagining an end condition for heavily unbalanced matches that end with like 400+ ticket difference which isn't every match in my experience, thankfully.
    As longs as matches are reasonably balanced they won't be too short.

    A balanced match with less then at max 10% ticket difference at the end is the optimal experience (as long as it doesn't take more than 30 min imo. 20 is my sweetspot I guess).
    The experience of moderately unbalanced matches with 10-40% ticket difference could be improved with the possibility of comebacks, making some of them also end with less then 10%.
    Heavily unbalanced matches that end with 40%+ ticket difference are beyond reasonable comback range and could be partially avoided with a mercy rule / end condition to increase the time well spend on better (more balanced) experiences.

    Balance is love, balance is life. Whatever helps balance is good.
    Though in the end I'd probably vote for whatever Dice is the most capable of / is the easiest for them to do...



    PS: Screw this thread / the OP, there definitely are not too many maps.
  • Piotrek1983pm
    204 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    hi, so this post is still popular after some time, I think I read all your comments and see that in the end it comes to.... to....to......???? Yes.....the BALANCE!!! There are many complains from players that the balancing is wrong. I am wondering why Dice will not make statement on this? I am sure they are aware of the problem. This issue might look small to some people but I think that is the biggest problem(you can call it a bug) of the game and until this is sorted no others changes should be made. We are being given maps but problems still exist and I am not talking about little things, you could even live with them but going to match 24vs32 is sad, one side takes a lead and then people from team of 24 a leaving the game, this experience is awful. I wonder what is the idea to balance people 24vs32, does anyone know. As regarding number of maps I could live without 3 or 4 of them and resource put towards creating them could be spend on other things like dealing with bugs(that is an advice for futer)
  • x_Undaunted_x
    2547 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited December 6
    hi, so this post is still popular after some time, I think I read all your comments and see that in the end it comes to.... to....to......???? Yes.....the BALANCE!!! There are many complains from players that the balancing is wrong. I am wondering why Dice will not make statement on this? I am sure they are aware of the problem. This issue might look small to some people but I think that is the biggest problem(you can call it a bug) of the game and until this is sorted no others changes should be made. We are being given maps but problems still exist and I am not talking about little things, you could even live with them but going to match 24vs32 is sad, one side takes a lead and then people from team of 24 a leaving the game, this experience is awful. I wonder what is the idea to balance people 24vs32, does anyone know. As regarding number of maps I could live without 3 or 4 of them and resource put towards creating them could be spend on other things like dealing with bugs(that is an advice for futer)

    Actually a dev has responded to me personally in a thread I created a few months back. They are aware of the problem and have acknowledged it, but there is no timeframe for when they plan to fix it. At this stage, I'm skeptical it ever will be.

    Still, you don't get it... It doesn't matter if we had 2 maps or 2000, the problem would still exist because you refuse to comprehend that DIFFERENT PEOPLE WORK ON DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE GAME. The map designers aren't responsible for fixing the balance problem. I'm not sure if there's a communication breakdown here because english isn't your native language or you're just intentionally trolling because you refuse to recognize this.
  • Piotrek1983pm
    204 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    hi, so this post is still popular after some time, I think I read all your comments and see that in the end it comes to.... to....to......???? Yes.....the BALANCE!!! There are many complains from players that the balancing is wrong. I am wondering why Dice will not make statement on this? I am sure they are aware of the problem. This issue might look small to some people but I think that is the biggest problem(you can call it a bug) of the game and until this is sorted no others changes should be made. We are being given maps but problems still exist and I am not talking about little things, you could even live with them but going to match 24vs32 is sad, one side takes a lead and then people from team of 24 a leaving the game, this experience is awful. I wonder what is the idea to balance people 24vs32, does anyone know. As regarding number of maps I could live without 3 or 4 of them and resource put towards creating them could be spend on other things like dealing with bugs(that is an advice for futer)

    Actually a dev has responded to me personally in a thread I created a few months back. They are aware of the problem and have acknowledged it, but there is no timeframe for when they plan to fix it. At this stage, I'm skeptical it ever will be.

    Still, you don't get it... It doesn't matter if we had 2 maps or 2000, the problem would still exist because you refuse to understand that DIFFERENT PEOPLE WORK ON DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE GAME. The map designers aren't responsible for fixing the balance problem.

    ok, I understand it(just pretend I understand if you dont belive I understand it), I really understand the fact that there are different departments within company, and different people work on diffrent things, let's close this chapter.

    As you can observe on battlefield tracker population of the game is decresing (it might be natural) at least for pc players. So
    observe this: less players more maps, now look, the game started with 6 maps and 120000players, that makes 20000 players per map! At present we have 22 mpas and 30000 players, that makes 1363players per map. I think that it in itself shows that the bigger number of maps has no influence on number of players playing the game as number went down by 75% even when number of maps went up, but we have to agree that every dlc increases the number of players for some time.
    So what causes that people are leving the game(as I mentioned it might be a natural process)? I really do not know but I can see people complaining about balancing then eventually quiting and swapping teams issue, that is why I have addresed this on this forum. Why it is not Dices priority? as it seems to be the biggest issue(at least form), I cant understand? Have they made so much profit that they do not bother fixing it???
    Another thing is you called me an idiot in one of your post, I will be loking for apology.
  • x_Undaunted_x
    2547 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    ok, I understand it(just pretend I understand if you dont belive I understand it), I really understand the fact that there are different departments within company, and different people work on diffrent things, let's close this chapter.

    Apparently, you don't understand or else you wouldn't have made this comment:
    We are being given maps but problems still exist and I am not talking about little things...
    As you can observe on battlefield tracker population of the game is decresing (it might be natural) at least for pc players. So
    observe this: less players more maps, now look, the game started with 6 maps and 120000players, that makes 20000 players per map! At present we have 22 mpas and 30000 players, that makes 1363players per map. I think that it in itself shows that the bigger number of maps has no influence on number of players playing the game as number went down by 75% even when number of maps went up, but we have to agree that every dlc increases the number of players for some time.
    So what causes that people are leving the game(as I mentioned it might be a natural process)?
    It is natural because the game is over a year old. A lot of new games have been released since then so people's focus change. Expecting the game to be as populated now (over a year later) as it was at launch is unrealistic. I think loqtrall even looked at the numbers and has said the population counts are comparable to BF4 at the same point when it was a little over a year old.
    I really do not know but I can see people complaining about balancing then eventually quiting and swapping teams issue, that is why I have addresed this on this forum. Why it is not Dices priority? as it seems to be the biggest issue(at least form), I cant understand? Have they made so much profit that they do not bother fixing it???
    Only DICE can answer this. The last question is ridiculous though. They ARE working on the game or else there wouldn't be patches every month.
    Another thing is you called me an idiot in one of your post, I will be loking for apology.
    I never called you an idiot in this thread so I'll be looking for your apology for lying. If you think you're ever going to get an apology for me then you'll be waiting for a very long time because it'll never happen, especially for something I never did.
  • Piotrek1983pm
    204 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    ok, I am sorry, I apologise, it was not you. It was AK-Bear-12.
  • Loqtrall
    8612 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited December 6

    ok, I understand it(just pretend I understand if you dont belive I understand it), I really understand the fact that there are different departments within company, and different people work on diffrent things, let's close this chapter.

    As you can observe on battlefield tracker population of the game is decresing (it might be natural) at least for pc players. So
    observe this: less players more maps, now look, the game started with 6 maps and 120000players, that makes 20000 players per map! At present we have 22 mpas and 30000 players, that makes 1363players per map. I think that it in itself shows that the bigger number of maps has no influence on number of players playing the game as number went down by 75% even when number of maps went up, but we have to agree that every dlc increases the number of players for some time.
    So what causes that people are leving the game(as I mentioned it might be a natural process)? I really do not know but I can see people complaining about balancing then eventually quiting and swapping teams issue, that is why I have addresed this on this forum. Why it is not Dices priority? as it seems to be the biggest issue(at least form), I cant understand? Have they made so much profit that they do not bother fixing it???
    Another thing is you called me an idiot in one of your post, I will be loking for apology.

    The thing is balance still isn't the primary topic of the thread (it's just being discussed slightly OT for some reason) - and what you said still doesn't change the fact that ceasing the creation of maps and removing maps from the game would do nothing to help improve game balance or any other in game issues.

    If you truly read all the comments here, you would have realized that by now, or at least should have. Despite the fact you said you did, it appears as if you don't, and still want people to move past it.

    Your spiel about player count and map number was dull as hell.

    30,000 players + 22 maps =1363 per map?

    What in the literal hell are you even talking about?

    Do you realize there are over a million unique BF players across all platforms, and that multiple servers are running the same map?

    How does your example even work when there are probably a dozen CQL servers alone running St Quintin Scar?

    Are you under the impression that the numbers you're seeing on BFTracker are player totals for each platform or something?

    People leave this game for all sorts of reasons. I've been playing BF for 15 years and like it so much I've been active near daily in this community for over 5 years - but I still took an almost month long break from BF1 without playing it at all because I was grinding like a maniac in Destiny 2. And now I've been playing it less because I picked up Cod Ww2 and SWBF2.

    It's absolutely natural for a year old fps game to lose players - BF4 lost players at an even faster rate, and it survived the longest gap between two BF release dates.

    The notion that removing maps and doing away with dlc would improve balancing issues, etc is complete and utter nonsense.

    Taking a portion of DICE's focus off of maps will not magically make the team that fixes bugs more proficient and faster at their jobs.
  • TEKNOCODE
    5982 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »

    ok, I understand it(just pretend I understand if you dont belive I understand it), I really understand the fact that there are different departments within company, and different people work on diffrent things, let's close this chapter.

    As you can observe on battlefield tracker population of the game is decresing (it might be natural) at least for pc players. So
    observe this: less players more maps, now look, the game started with 6 maps and 120000players, that makes 20000 players per map! At present we have 22 mpas and 30000 players, that makes 1363players per map. I think that it in itself shows that the bigger number of maps has no influence on number of players playing the game as number went down by 75% even when number of maps went up, but we have to agree that every dlc increases the number of players for some time.
    So what causes that people are leving the game(as I mentioned it might be a natural process)? I really do not know but I can see people complaining about balancing then eventually quiting and swapping teams issue, that is why I have addresed this on this forum. Why it is not Dices priority? as it seems to be the biggest issue(at least form), I cant understand? Have they made so much profit that they do not bother fixing it???
    Another thing is you called me an idiot in one of your post, I will be loking for apology.

    30,000 players + 22 maps =1363 per map?

    What in the literal hell are you even talking about?
    tenor.gif
  • trip1ex
    1487 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Yep OP. instead of the 23rd and 24th maps put more effort into improving the experience we have. Fix things like balance which is way too often ridiculous.


  • x_Undaunted_x
    2547 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Yep OP. instead of the 23rd and 24th maps put more effort into improving the experience we have. Fix things like balance which is way too often ridiculous.


    When can we expect more effort in your trolling? It's extremely weak since you're regurgitating the same nonsense without any real contribution.
  • xUSMCxSASxSn1p3r
    330 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    observe this: less players more maps, now look, the game started with 6 maps and 120000players, that makes 20000 players per map! At present we have 22 mpas and 30000 players, that makes 1363players per map.

    I observed and got seriously damage.
  • robmcewen
    1695 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I think the OP on to something, maybe DICE should get the map people to work on the bugs hell why we at it, let's get everyone who works for DICE to help fix's the bug's and I mean EVERYONE,
    • Concept Artist
    • Security
    • Canteen staff
    • Receptionist
    • Cleaners
    • Marketing
    • Human Resources
    • Accounts
    • Interns

    And all the rest of their staff they all work for a game company so they must know how to fix bugs.

    And OP

  • Piotrek1983pm
    204 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    My point is, number of players decreases and number of maps rises, plus no major improvements of the game, we are given maps instead of improving gameplay, why Dice chose this way? I can't understand. I can only believe that they are more experienced than me and know what they do.
  • TEKNOCODE
    5982 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I can only believe that they are more experienced than me and know what they do.
    /thread
  • x_Undaunted_x
    2547 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    My point is, number of players decreases and number of maps rises, plus no major improvements of the game, we are given maps instead of improving gameplay, why Dice chose this way? I can't understand. I can only believe that they are more experienced than me and know what they do.

    Lower number of players - because the game is over a year old.
    No major improvements - I've seen plenty of improvements. They release a patch every month. The game runs fine for me, even better than BF4.
    Why does DICE still choose to release maps? You still don't get it. At this point, I'm seriously questioning your intellectual ability (or lack thereof.)
  • Loqtrall
    8612 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    we are given maps instead of improving gameplay, why Dice chose this way?

    Because maps and gameplay changes exist individually and apart from one another. DICE are not putting more emphasis on making maps just because maps are still being released. Both those departments function separately.

    You're saying DICE emphasizes focus of their studio on maps like if they didn't make maps at all, issues would be fixed faster. That's just ridiculous.

    Some of these issues have been around through several games - Have you ever considered DICE should maybe find better people for fixing bugs, instead of insisting that one department essentially be cut because you're under the impression it would improve gameplay somehow? Or are you assuming DICE are putting more emphasis on having their map designers putting out good DLC, that it's somehow pulling attention away from the big fixing guys?

    Do you actually know how a dev studio works at all?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!