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

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

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

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...

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Also add dom modes in PC. That would be a massive battle, preferably the meat grinder.

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

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.

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.

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.

Even not knowing until warbarge will put a hamper on how teams are built.

Squad compositions are completely different for the 4 point Hub and Bridge map. This is why I would prefer knowing as soon as the attack is initiated.

I take pride in building proper teams and game planning around the enemy. It's what brings me the most enjoyment out of dust.

All I can say is... Rattati hadn't mentioned anything about randomising maps in any of the official feedback threads (afaik) until THIS thread popped up... So I'll know who to blame if we end up with some ridiculous randomly generated map design for PC

lmao

It was being pushed by Zatara months ago so was wondering if it caught any traction.

Next time I'm just going to keep my mouth shut.

Even not knowing until warbarge will put a hamper on how teams are built.

Squad compositions are completely different for the 4 point Hub and Bridge map. This is why I would prefer knowing as soon as the attack is initiated.

I take pride in building proper teams and game planning around the enemy. It's what brings me the most enjoyment out of dust.

Please remove Gallente Research Facility from circulation.

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