Suggestion:20171201 Endgame - Map Reduction: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Protected "Suggestion:20171201 Endgame - Map Reduction": Suggestions Archives Protection ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{Rejected|Malton}} | ||
===20171201 Endgame - Map Reduction=== | |||
=== | |||
{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 02:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC) | {{User:Drawde/Sig}} 02:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC) | ||
| Line 28: | Line 27: | ||
'''Keep Votes''' | '''Keep Votes''' | ||
#'''Keep''' - Legit af {{User:Drawde/Sig}} 02:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC) | #'''Keep''' - Legit af {{User:Drawde/Sig}} 02:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC) | ||
#'''Keep''' - I’m not persuaded by the argument about needing more space for player alts. The most crucial problem is the low density of the player base. The reduction of the map may well lead to people dropping alts, but as long as their remaining characters have an increase in-game activities with other players that trade off is in my view a positive. [[User:JAZED|JAZED]] ([[User talk:JAZED|talk]]) 05:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
'''Kill Votes''' | '''Kill Votes''' | ||
#'''Kill''' - As I've said in similar discussions in the past, the trick with reducing the city size is you also reduce the ability of players to have multiple alts. My guess is that maybe half of current players run multiple (non-zerg) alts, and with the distance requirements involved it gets real tricky to have more than 1 (maybe 2) if the map is less than 5x5 suburbs. I'd vote yes on e.g. killing off the outer ring, or even two rings, of suburbs, but a 4x4 map is just a little too tight. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 14:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
#:True, true. It's a definite trade off - might favour a 2x2 reduction myself with that in mind. --{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 20:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
#'''Kill''' - As Bob. Exactly as Bob. --{{User:Armpit_Odor/dnsig}} 19:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
#'''Change''' - As Bob, and some people like the outer 'burbs. However, I wonder how a "partial wall-off" would work out. Meaning walls around some 'burbs, but a gap or breach to defend. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 02:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
#'''Change''' - As Bob. I'd say 6x6 is a good number. Can juggle three alts comfortably.{{User:RadicalWhig/sig}}07:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
'''Spam/Dupe Votes''' | '''Spam/Dupe Votes''' | ||
Latest revision as of 13:21, 27 May 2018
|
Closed |
| This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Rejected. |
20171201 Endgame - Map Reduction
Adward 02:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion type
Map alteration - Endgame
Suggestion scope
City of Malton - All Players
Suggestion description
Let's face it - we're hitting endgame territory now, but it's been a good run. The military are in a good spot to roll in and torch a few 'burbs to make things interesting for those of us still trapped in the quarantine.
Survivor numbers are lower than they've been since the original Caiger battles. Where before harmanz were easy to find and easier even to shoot, they're now scattered across the city. Where battles used to occur with regularity, a fading memory of Escape and Big Bash 4 is all that sustains us. BB4 was five years ago.
We gotta spice things up. The map size is fast approaching the point where interesting, large-scale conflict is far more difficult, and far more unlikely. To combat this I propose cutting the map in size - right now it forms a 10x10 grid, it would form a 4x4, taking away three suburbs from each side of the map. The revised suburb map would look like this:
This would give the vibrance of the game a much needed boost, and push conflicts closer, truly bringing the no safety feel back to the game we know and love.
Voting Section
| Voting Rules |
Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped.
Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user. |
| The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote. |
Keep Votes
- Keep - Legit af Adward 02:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - I’m not persuaded by the argument about needing more space for player alts. The most crucial problem is the low density of the player base. The reduction of the map may well lead to people dropping alts, but as long as their remaining characters have an increase in-game activities with other players that trade off is in my view a positive. JAZED (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Kill Votes
- Kill - As I've said in similar discussions in the past, the trick with reducing the city size is you also reduce the ability of players to have multiple alts. My guess is that maybe half of current players run multiple (non-zerg) alts, and with the distance requirements involved it gets real tricky to have more than 1 (maybe 2) if the map is less than 5x5 suburbs. I'd vote yes on e.g. killing off the outer ring, or even two rings, of suburbs, but a 4x4 map is just a little too tight. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 14:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- True, true. It's a definite trade off - might favour a 2x2 reduction myself with that in mind. -- Adward 20:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Kill - As Bob. Exactly as Bob. --AORDMOPRI ! T 19:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Change - As Bob, and some people like the outer 'burbs. However, I wonder how a "partial wall-off" would work out. Meaning walls around some 'burbs, but a gap or breach to defend. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Change - As Bob. I'd say 6x6 is a good number. Can juggle three alts comfortably.--
FoD PK Praise Rando!07:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Spam/Dupe Votes
