DUST Search - PC map changes?

CCP Rattati wrote:

Zaria Min Deir wrote:

CCP Rattati wrote:

The maps are for "lore" reasons, does anyone object to randomizing this up a bit?

"Random", I certainly object to. There is no justification for the map on the district to change between fights, that's just nonsensical.

Socket counts and locations should stay the same as they are, but variety to the socket combinations (between districts) would be welcome. And, sure, maybe if you add different district types (to the 3 we have already), the new district types could use different large sockets... But still, if CCP still hasn't been able to resolve the issues with the Gallente Lag Map, I don't think adding more potentially problematic sockets should be a priority, fixing the existing ones should.

While I understand most people want different maps to fight on, the issue here is that the 3 maps we fight on currently (the maps, not the outposts/large sockets, but the actual maps) are the only maps in Dust currently that are, imho, in any way balanced for the type of combat most of us would actually want PC to be. Many of the other maps in pub rotation favour one side heavily, are very open to sniping of all kinds, encourage camping too heavily, are simply too large etc. Some may see no issue with any of that, I just personally would like to keep that in pubs, not in PC.

We have had some of the other maps in corp battles, but do most people really want PC fight to be fought on Manus Peak (even after the many transformations the map has gone through, it still has some issues)? One of the main complaints (after the bad organisation, of course) about the Urgent Fury tournament was how one of the maps chosen gave too much of an advantage to one of the teams. In fact, the people who set up the squad cup said it was certainly a chore to try and select map configurations that would be balanced in that regard, and they in fact struggled to get even close to that.

Demanding more maps to be added to the rotation is one thing, but which maps?

Maybe, just maybe, we just concentrate first on fixing the mechanics of PC, and fixing issues that are actually detrimental to game play, like the frame rate drops and various bugs, before we spend too much effort on "randomising" the PC map rotation?

So battles on a huge planetary district always happen on the same exact 5x5 km area? I would call that nonsensical. All battles that happen in North America, are always in Central Park, NY.

It would be interesting if you would actually write up the maps, sockets and your opinions on each, and why they are unbalanced so we can look into those issues.

"fix frame rate" is not as easy as saying it, that's why we are looking at other options.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 1504	Posted - 2015.01.21 19:25:00 - [1] - Quote I have seen no mention of changing the maps for PC districts. Is this in discussion?
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2940	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:35:00 - [2] - Quote I'd love to see some of the new 3 point maps. Totally different style of match with that few points. Not sure I like the new city socket, though.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4469	Posted - 2015.01.22 00:03:00 - [3] - Quote Ideally we would open up more options/change existing Surface Infrastructure to accommodate the new maps. SI is part of the ongoing PC discussion but it's not a prime topic since more core issues need to be worked out first. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
hfderrtgvcd 1735	Posted - 2015.01.22 02:48:00 - [4] - Quote I am so ******* sick of playing on the 4 point cargo hub. Please add new maps into the rotation You can't fight in here! This is the war room.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15395	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:43:00 - [5] - Quote The maps are for "lore" reasons, does anyone object to randomizing this up a bit? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Kaze Eyrou DUST University Ivy League 1777	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:48:00 - [6] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: The maps are for "lore" reasons, does anyone object to randomizing this up a bit? No. Please. Randomize. It's odd to see the "Production Facility" as the Biomass map, while the actual Production Facility is used in pubs but not PC? Also, could we add bonuses inherent to their map names? Communications Facility could use the "Research Facility" bonus. Research Facility could be the production of Hacked Decryptor Keys or something else cool. Biomass Facility... something to do with taking salvage... maybe higher salvage rates after battle? Orbital Artillery is called the "Cargo Hub" as well. Maybe that could be switched up too? Anyways, there's my ideas blurb... CB Vet // Logi Bro // @KazeEyrou Kaze's Helpful Links
Kaze Eyrou DUST University Ivy League 1777	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:50:00 - [7] - Quote Also, would it be possible to add a little thing in the Player List showing the name of the map name as well as what the name of the city structure is? This could be added to all ToW (Theaters of War: Pubs, FW, and PC; stealing your phrase Rattati). Better setup before battles and better fights and all it would be is a simple UI change. CB Vet // Logi Bro // @KazeEyrou Kaze's Helpful Links
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4327	Posted - 2015.01.22 08:40:00 - [8] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: The maps are for "lore" reasons, does anyone object to randomizing this up a bit? Yes please.... but just don't include the lab. It still causes tons of issues. It really needs to go back in the toybox until it can get whacked with a hammer and put back into shape when it comes to fps performance. I will echo some other sentiments though that the maps can be randomized but a district map should then be unchanged. Previous intel on district make-up like 2 points in 2 points out is actually an important part of the intel game and battle planning. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Doyle Reese OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 531	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:32:00 - [9] - Quote The lab isn't the problem, it's the map itself. Specifically when you leave and return to any large socket, you just notice it more with the lab. It's a memory issue where the map fails to unload assets causing the memory leak. (At least that's what I think it is, I may be using terms incorrectly) Try it, go in a large socket, run around for it bit, then leave it for the outside objectives, run around for a bit, then go back into the large socket and instant dump on performance!
HOLY PERFECTION G.L.O.R.Y General Tso's Alliance 12	Posted - 2015.01.22 12:12:00 - [10] - Quote Also add dom modes in PC. That would be a massive battle, preferably the meat grinder. GO BIG OR GO HOME!

Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 1508	Posted - 2015.01.22 12:27:00 - [11] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: The maps are for "lore" reasons, does anyone object to randomizing this up a bit? I'm not against changing the maps up since we've been playing the same few for 2 years now. However, I don't want to see some of the larger ones added like Border Gulch and Fracture Road because they are just too big for 16v16. It would water down the intense fights that make PC fun. Imagine the intense meatgrinder of 2 PC teams going at it on Ashland.
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 1875	Posted - 2015.01.22 13:27:00 - [12] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: The maps are for "lore" reasons, does anyone object to randomizing this up a bit? Please remove Gallente Research Facility from circulation.
Mexxx Dust-Slayer Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 255	Posted - 2015.01.22 13:29:00 - [13] - Quote Delete the Gallente Research Facility map. Then maybe add in 1 or 2 sockets at a time to see what part causes lag. The fiery cylinder things might be filling up the frame rate drop threshold.
Alaika Arbosa Minmatar Republic 2407	Posted - 2015.01.22 14:33:00 - [14] - Quote Kaze Eyrou wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: The maps are for "lore" reasons, does anyone object to randomizing this up a bit? EDIT: What exactly do you mean by "randomize"? If you mean, "always have a random PC map" I would have to go with no. You know what node and city map it is, it should be your home. However, I would like to see more maps in the PC. I would also like to see maps that have city nodes that make sense. It's odd to see the "Production Facility" as the Biomass map, while the actual Production Facility is used in pubs but not PC? Also, could we add bonuses inherent to their map names? Communications Facility could use the "Research Facility" bonus. Research Facility could be the production of Hacked Decryptor Keys or something else cool. Biomass Facility... something to do with taking salvage... maybe higher salvage rates after battle? Orbital Artillery is called the "Cargo Hub" as well. Maybe that could be switched up too? Anyways, there's my ideas blurb... It would be cool if eventually we could dictate what sockets were on our District. Pay X Isk and design your District literally from the ground up. Make it require some form of upgrade to the District and give each individual change its own price. Ad Space Available Here 1m Isk/day Mail me message after transferring Isk (sig updated upon transfer completion)
Balistyc Farshot The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 43	Posted - 2015.01.22 17:47:00 - [15] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: The maps are for "lore" reasons, does anyone object to randomizing this up a bit? Yes please.... but just don't include the lab. It still causes tons of issues. It really needs to go back in the toybox until it can get whacked with a hammer and put back into shape when it comes to fps performance. I will echo some other sentiments though that the maps can be randomized but a district map should then be unchanged. Previous intel on district make-up like 2 points in 2 points out is actually an important part of the intel game and battle planning. I like to echo this statement. I also wouldn't mind a completely random map rotation, just maintain capture point counts (Gives old school some consistency). The reason I don't mind completely random is due to the attacker being able to choose where in the district they fight, you have more than that one facility in that district. I agree it is their home, so they could get some advantage but I think that has more to do with things like redoing other PC factors (Raids, warbarge bonuses, and district values). Random maps would allow for less conversations like: Merc1: Ok, just like last time I will get in Merc2's DS and get flown to the top of the building where I always sit and cover the map with my RR and Swarms. (I have literally done this.) Having a fight that prescribed is just awful. We need to be thrown for a loop, what they are attacking the bridge to siege us, dang, we have to fight them there. Guess no high points, so no real need for a DS dropping us for uplinks. Heavy with a massive bullet hose called Lola (Burst HMG).
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 15189	Posted - 2015.01.22 18:01:00 - [16] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: The maps are for "lore" reasons, does anyone object to randomizing this up a bit? None here, but personally I would prefer being able to choose the map. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 15189	Posted - 2015.01.22 18:02:00 - [17] - Quote Kaze Eyrou wrote: Also, would it be possible to add a little thing in the Player List showing the name of the map name as well as what the name of the city structure is? This could be added to all ToW (Theaters of War: Pubs, FW, and PC; stealing your phrase Rattati). Better setup before battles and better fights and all it would be is a simple UI change. Or they could make the the "Show Map" option available in the NeoCom while in the Warbarge. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
D3LTA Blitzkrieg II 0uter.Heaven 170	Posted - 2015.01.22 18:49:00 - [18] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: The maps are for "lore" reasons, does anyone object to randomizing this up a bit? get rid of gal research facility... its a lagfest. The best leaders inspire greatness in others
hfderrtgvcd 1761	Posted - 2015.01.22 21:24:00 - [19] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: The maps are for "lore" reasons, does anyone object to randomizing this up a bit? not in the slightest You can't fight in here! This is the war room.
killian178 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 83	Posted - 2015.01.22 23:40:00 - [20] - Quote Dust User wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: The maps are for "lore" reasons, does anyone object to randomizing this up a bit? I'm not against changing the maps up since we've been playing the same few for 2 years now. However, I don't want to see some of the larger ones added like Border Gulch and Fracture Road because they are just too big for 16v16. It would water down the intense fights that make PC fun. Imagine the intense meatgrinder of 2 PC teams going at it on Ashland. Then what would vehicle users do in pc? Every commando k.o, every weapon at adv or above. Don't give a damn bout my kdr, I will kill you.

el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 770	Posted - 2015.01.23 00:26:00 - [21] - Quote Getting the map table in the barge pre-deployment working would be nice. SI shouldn't be random, it should continue to be dictated by what the district holder sets it for. The Cargo Hub isn't an insanely popular map for PC because b/c everyone loves it, its popular b/c it'll hold high clone counts. Maybe modifying the bonusing or planetary effect value would stimulate some SI changes. Maybe, it'd be worthwhile to more closely examine the existing bonusing to further refine the SI bonus' interplay so that to maximize the potential the district owner needs all SI types present, not just 1 production facility and 10 cargohubs. Maybe theres room to tie these infrastructure elements to the proposed merc WarBarges or the Flotillas themselves as well. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Bradric Banewolf D3ATH CARD RUST415 686	Posted - 2015.01.23 02:46:00 - [22] - Quote Open maps add a larger level of challenge, and gives way to new types of strategy. Also, some players play better in open maps. Transport techniques, tanking, LAV usage can all be added to these types of maps. Some diversity would be welcomed because the hug fest in CQC has gotten old. "Anybody order chaos?"
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5830	Posted - 2015.01.23 03:05:00 - [23] - Quote HOLY PERFECTION wrote: Also add dom modes in PC. That would be a massive battle, preferably the meat grinder. That would be insane. I'm selling Templar Codes. 3 of 4 remaining. 200 mil ISK. Message me in game.
xTheSiLLyRaBBiTx Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 261	Posted - 2015.01.23 03:24:00 - [24] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: The maps are for "lore" reasons, does anyone object to randomizing this up a bit? Highly recommend the removal of the Surface Research Lab as it creates an unrecoverable amount of lag throughout the match. *\|LOGi GOD\|* Director of Fatal Absolution
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5832	Posted - 2015.01.23 03:40:00 - [25] - Quote That one map with those things, I like that one. I'm selling Templar Codes. 3 of 4 remaining. 200 mil ISK. Message me in game.
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1072	Posted - 2015.01.23 04:18:00 - [26] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: The maps are for "lore" reasons, does anyone object to randomizing this up a bit? "Random", I certainly object to. There is no justification for the map on the district to change between fights, that's just nonsensical. Socket counts and locations should stay the same as they are, but variety to the socket combinations (between districts) would be welcome. And, sure, maybe if you add different district types (to the 3 we have already), the new district types could use different large sockets... But still, if CCP still hasn't been able to resolve the issues with the Gallente Lag Map, I don't think adding more potentially problematic sockets should be a priority, fixing the existing ones should. While I understand most people want different maps to fight on, the issue here is that the 3 maps we fight on currently (the maps, not the outposts/large sockets, but the actual maps) are the only maps in Dust currently that are, imho, in any way balanced for the type of combat most of us would actually want PC to be. Many of the other maps in pub rotation favour one side heavily, are very open to sniping of all kinds, encourage camping too heavily, are simply too large etc. Some may see no issue with any of that, I just personally would like to keep that in pubs, not in PC. We have had some of the other maps in corp battles, but do most people really want PC fight to be fought on Manus Peak (even after the many transformations the map has gone through, it still has some issues)? One of the main complaints (after the bad organisation, of course) about the Urgent Fury tournament was how one of the maps chosen gave too much of an advantage to one of the teams. In fact, the people who set up the squad cup said it was certainly a chore to try and select map configurations that would be balanced in that regard, and they in fact struggled to get even close to that. Demanding more maps to be added to the rotation is one thing, but which maps? Maybe, just maybe, we just concentrate first on fixing the mechanics of PC, and fixing issues that are actually detrimental to game play, like the frame rate drops and various bugs, before we spend too much effort on "randomising" the PC map rotation? Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15520	Posted - 2015.01.23 07:53:00 - [27] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: The maps are for "lore" reasons, does anyone object to randomizing this up a bit? "Random", I certainly object to. There is no justification for the map on the district to change between fights, that's just nonsensical. Socket counts and locations should stay the same as they are, but variety to the socket combinations (between districts) would be welcome. And, sure, maybe if you add different district types (to the 3 we have already), the new district types could use different large sockets... But still, if CCP still hasn't been able to resolve the issues with the Gallente Lag Map, I don't think adding more potentially problematic sockets should be a priority, fixing the existing ones should. While I understand most people want different maps to fight on, the issue here is that the 3 maps we fight on currently (the maps, not the outposts/large sockets, but the actual maps) are the only maps in Dust currently that are, imho, in any way balanced for the type of combat most of us would actually want PC to be. Many of the other maps in pub rotation favour one side heavily, are very open to sniping of all kinds, encourage camping too heavily, are simply too large etc. Some may see no issue with any of that, I just personally would like to keep that in pubs, not in PC. We have had some of the other maps in corp battles, but do most people really want PC fight to be fought on Manus Peak (even after the many transformations the map has gone through, it still has some issues)? One of the main complaints (after the bad organisation, of course) about the Urgent Fury tournament was how one of the maps chosen gave too much of an advantage to one of the teams. In fact, the people who set up the squad cup said it was certainly a chore to try and select map configurations that would be balanced in that regard, and they in fact struggled to get even close to that. Demanding more maps to be added to the rotation is one thing, but which maps? Maybe, just maybe, we just concentrate first on fixing the mechanics of PC, and fixing issues that are actually detrimental to game play, like the frame rate drops and various bugs, before we spend too much effort on "randomising" the PC map rotation? So battles on a huge planetary district always happen on the same exact 5x5 km area? I would call that nonsensical. All battles that happen in North America, are always in Central Park, NY. It would be interesting if you would actually write up the maps, sockets and your opinions on each, and why they are unbalanced so we can look into those issues. "fix frame rate" is not as easy as saying it, that's why we are looking at other options. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

bigolenuts Ancient Exiles. 1392	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:53:00 - [28] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Zaria Min Deir wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: The maps are for "lore" reasons, does anyone object to randomizing this up a bit? "Random", I certainly object to. There is no justification for the map on the district to change between fights, that's just nonsensical. Socket counts and locations should stay the same as they are, but variety to the socket combinations (between districts) would be welcome. And, sure, maybe if you add different district types (to the 3 we have already), the new district types could use different large sockets... But still, if CCP still hasn't been able to resolve the issues with the Gallente Lag Map, I don't think adding more potentially problematic sockets should be a priority, fixing the existing ones should. While I understand most people want different maps to fight on, the issue here is that the 3 maps we fight on currently (the maps, not the outposts/large sockets, but the actual maps) are the only maps in Dust currently that are, imho, in any way balanced for the type of combat most of us would actually want PC to be. Many of the other maps in pub rotation favour one side heavily, are very open to sniping of all kinds, encourage camping too heavily, are simply too large etc. Some may see no issue with any of that, I just personally would like to keep that in pubs, not in PC. We have had some of the other maps in corp battles, but do most people really want PC fight to be fought on Manus Peak (even after the many transformations the map has gone through, it still has some issues)? One of the main complaints (after the bad organisation, of course) about the Urgent Fury tournament was how one of the maps chosen gave too much of an advantage to one of the teams. In fact, the people who set up the squad cup said it was certainly a chore to try and select map configurations that would be balanced in that regard, and they in fact struggled to get even close to that. Demanding more maps to be added to the rotation is one thing, but which maps? Maybe, just maybe, we just concentrate first on fixing the mechanics of PC, and fixing issues that are actually detrimental to game play, like the frame rate drops and various bugs, before we spend too much effort on "randomising" the PC map rotation? So battles on a huge planetary district always happen on the same exact 5x5 km area? I would call that nonsensical. All battles that happen in North America, are always in Central Park, NY. It would be interesting if you would actually write up the maps, sockets and your opinions on each, and why they are unbalanced so we can look into those issues. "fix frame rate" is not as easy as saying it, that's why we are looking at other options. Explain, "looking at other options". Like what you are having for lunch? you're in Iceland, rotten whale meat is automatic. Seriously, I don't speak computerese but, how is looking at other options going to help? Do you mean that you guys are giving up on fixing frame rate issues or that the other options are intended to fix the frame rate issues? Personally I think you guys should become laser-focused on the issues at hand instead of expanding/adding to the game giving you more things you can not fix. I am available for task management consulting. Send me an email and we will discuss rates. Someone needs to take charge over there. You guys are running around like a chicken with your head cut off. Edited for correction; hakarl or something like that. Cured shark, not rotten whale or whatever it was I said. I use to play this game, but my dog got sick- Zatara the Pizza Boy
Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 1536	Posted - 2015.01.23 14:39:00 - [29] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: So battles on a huge planetary district always happen on the same exact 5x5 km area? I would call that nonsensical. All battles that happen in North America, are always in Central Park, NY. It would be interesting if you would actually write up the maps, sockets and your opinions on each, and why they are unbalanced so we can look into those issues. "fix frame rate" is not as easy as saying it, that's why we are looking at other options. If maps are going to be random every time you attack/defend a district then we need some sort of intel displaying the map at time of attack/defend. This is crucial to pre-game squad building and tactics. Turn it into a pub match of always having a random map with no knowledge prior to battle and you've removed my favorite part of the game. As far as frame rate, everyone would like to see the Research Lab changed out. The frame rate makes it so unplayable that nobody will even attack one.
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1076	Posted - 2015.01.23 15:42:00 - [30] - Quote Dust User wrote: If maps are going to be random every time you attack/defend a district then we need some sort of intel displaying the map at time of attack/defend. This is crucial to pre-game squad building and tactics. Turn it into a pub match of always having a random map with no knowledge prior to battle and you've removed my favorite part of the game. As far as frame rate, everyone would like to see the Research Lab changed out. The frame rate makes it so unplayable that nobody will even attack one. Exactly! People can play a random unknown map any time they want to, just go queue pubs or fw... Why take away one of the more tactical aspects of PC, being able to organise a team and plan for a specific map set up? That map table on the warbarge would be a compromise, sure. Make that work, and you can randomise (for whatever the reason is you are so set on random) to your heart's content, just give those of us who actually see value in and appreciate tactical gameplay and planning something. Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page