well considering that map preference system has been announced and there hasnt been any info on how they plan to implement it, i will give my suggestion on how i think it should be implemented based on current situation in the game.
considering that we have extremely complex MM compared to any other game i think it is unrealistic to actually enable everyone to play map/mode they exactly want to play cause we would get bot matches all the time. so we need to compromise and that is with voting.
voting gives choice of using preferred map vote system or veto map vote system. i think that better solution is veto map vote system cause people will not play map/mode that they hate, but will play map even if it is not preferred one if it is the one that they do not hate.
i would also add preferred side vote system so people can influence if they will end up on attacker or defender side.
main idea on how to implement it:
votes are done in main menu prior to running battle, so you always have selection of maps/modes you dont want to play
everyone gets 1 vote per map/mode/side and they can cast it on all maps/modes if they want it
vote priority for deciding map is mode veto and then map veto
side vote system is RNG system with your votes increasing RNG chances of favorable outcome
when lobby is made it decides sides depending on RNG and then checks votes before deciding which mode/map will be chosen (necessary order to exclude some maps where one faction is only attacker or defender, e.g. ver-su-mer or d-day before reverse was introduced)
here is example on how it would work when creating lobby:
example 1:
side is decided by RNG after voting
there are few ways on how you could implement RNG, but here are 2:
1. default value for all sides is 10. if you chose attacker you add +1 and if you choose defender you get -1. if whole team chooses defender they get 0 and if whole team chooses attackers they get 20 value.
so chance of team 1 getting attackers is team_1_value/(team_1_value+team_2_value). if both team have same value then chance is 50-50
2. default value is is 10. team_1_attacker_chance= (10+team_1_attacker_votes-team_1_defender_votes-team_2_attacker_votes+team_2_defender_votes)/20
team 1 has 5 people who want attackers, 2 people who want defenders, 3 people who are neutral
team 2 has 2 people who want attackers, 4 people who want defenders, 4 people who are neutral
calculation for first method: team_1_value= 13 (5 people attackers(+5), 2 people defenders(-2), 3 people neutral(0)), team_2_value= 8 (2 people attackers(+2), 4 people defenders(-4), 4 neutral(0)). chance of team 1 getting attackers is 13/(13+8)= 62%
calculation for second method: team_1_value= (10+5-2-2+4)/20=75%
next is mode
cause of tie, map mode will be detonation or invasion
i will not list all maps, but you select map based on maps with least votes based on RNG (any map with least votes has same chance of getting selected)
optional ideas:
dont join ongoing match option
join ongoing match for 20% xp bonus (regardless of your preferences)
introduce soft rule trying to match people based on side they want to play
introduce option of forcing hard rule with infinite MM queue time
think that i forgot few other ideas that i had at beginning
you would be basically preloading your votes from main menu and when MM gets 20 people it tallies the votes. you wouldnt have time to change loadouts.
although it would be nice to have at least attacker/defender loadouts, but DF probably doesnt want that so they can sell premium time and premium slots.
Oh, I thought you were suggesting lobbies like how Call of Duty does it. Shows everyone in the lobby and does map voting and VC, which I was then going to follow up with a stay in the lobby option so in case you have found good teammates or enemies you can stick around to fight them again.
edited OP so it is more clear. prematch lobby would just make game needlessly ovecomplicated cause you would need to cast vote on side, mode and than veto ~150 maps. if you preselect votes on what you dont want to play you get much faster MM.
i disagree with premium account only privilege, cause it would still lead to too many matches and not enough players if you enable map/mode that they exactly want.
only thing that could possibly work is to have 1 hard ban on map for premium players, but it could still lead to problems where premium players that could have every playable map banned, e.g. pacific has ~20 maps and if you get 20 premium players you could have all maps banned.
you quoted part where it is unrealistic to have everyone play exactly what they want (e.g. exact map) and that statement holds true even if it is only applied to premium players. you should have specified that voting should be premium player only privilege
idk why should f2p players be in this game at all if they are treated like second class citizens. i guess you would rather enjoy having premium players play against bots only? also WT has similar system with likes/dislikes for maps and ban for premium only players (which wouldnt work cause of complex MM and lack of maps per mode per faction).
xD It has no effect on balance or gameplay. It’s purely a comfort thing.
And giving this option to f2p would mean that there would be scenarios where f2p players could outnumber and outvote paying players. Effectively forcing paying customers to play something they haven’t wished for.
If anything, this feature is a prime example of what should be behind a pay wall. It’s pure luxury, nothing else. And it’s not necessary for f2p players to have that much power over paying players.
I would use second class citizen label in context of squad slots and such. That’s real issue which has high impact on gameplay/balance.
i would use same logic back to you. why should f2p players be forced to play what they havent wished for. do you not know why half of desertions happen right now?
with veto vote system at least everyone can designate what they dont want to play, which is much better option than people voting same 2 maps that they want to play
this is not luxury. choosing map that you want to play (or not to play) should be basic game mechanic for every game. i certainly wont play shit maps and modes and that is why i desert. if i am forced to play every shit map and every shit mode i would just quit the game.
only thing that affects f2p players is availability of second vehicle slot when they need to counter e.g. tank in gray zone, or when they need to take out enemy plane. having more infantry slots wont make much difference even though it will give more variety to tactics player can use.
Because they don’t support the game financially. And if no one would support the game in this way, the servers would shut down pretty quickly.
We currently have no preference system and we can exist without it.
Nothing would change for f2p players in this matter.
But I really don’t see why the experience and comfort of customers who actively support the game financially should be lowered on behalf of players who don’t support the game in any way.
With exception of one thing, and that’s their presence (which is no different from paying players).
I’d rather give f2p players the 2 squad slots that are unlocked by having an active premium account. And make this preferential feature a new benefit from the premium account instead.
Both would benefit, f2ps wouldn’t be disadvantaged in an area where it really matters. And paying customers wouldn’t be influenced by what map the person who have never supported (note that 20 bucks per year really isn’t something expensive) the game financially wants to play.
He can easily access this feature (which doesn’t affects gameplay in any way whatsoever) by paying 20/40 bucks per year.
I think it’s completely fair.
Plus it would meant, this feature would be much more effective when only limited number of people could actually vote and thus influence it.
that is why we have high desertion rates? certainly existing is the word to use there…
i agree… f2p players would just keep deserting like they do now cause of bad map/mode choice.
you can have all the comfort of paying customer in a dead game.
we have seen how popular is your thinking about monetization of the game from previous topics.
effective for people voting, not effective for people not voting. what incentive do people have to stay on map that they hate cause it was “effectively voted” by few premium players.
map preference is added cause it is one of the ways on how to fix desertion problem, not to be another way to monetize the game.
We have high desertion rate because people are allowed to bypass system without any punishments whatsoever.
It’s really pathetic you are using desertion as argument to support your perspective in literally every discussion you have participated recently.
You are clearly doing it with intention to push certain agenda, not trying to argue in legitimate way.
That’s why bypassing the system shouldn’t be allowed.
Completely pathetic statement, not proper argument yet again.
You could say this literally in every discussion about any game in support to your opinion.
But value of such statement is basically zero.
Rather than countering my arguments and points, you are starting focusing on my person. Yet again, not an argument. Not the proper way how to debate.
Desertion punishment policy which was promised by developers.
~half of desertion comes from inability to choose maps and modes and instead of fixing the issue you want to punish people for not wanting to play bad modes/maps. that is certainly one way to make people leave the game and that is why i say you will enjoy having all comfort of paying customer in dead game.
cause you have unhealthy opinions on game monetization. you want game studios to earn lots of money so they can keep game alive even if it comes at cost of players and i want game to have lots of players so the game is alive for longer.
there is reason why p2w games die fast. you may think that map choice is luxury, but it is basic game mechanic and f2p players would hate premium players having choice over maps while they dont way more than premium players having 2 extra slots.
Complete speculation based on literally nothing.
No one can know if desertion rate would actually drop if that changed. Or if that’s a completely fabricated argument from people trying to push their agendas.
That you present something like that as fact only undermines your credibility in this debate. Even more so when you use it as an argument in a debate that is about a completely different subject.
Yeah, I guess this is extremely unhealthy opinion… Exchanging obvious p2w aspect for just comfort feature.
Very unhealthy indeed.
That’s lie. We have literally no clue how it’s going to be implemented.
maybe check stats. there is prematch desertion column there and i can 100% guarantee that minimum quarter of all desertions is cause of bad mode/map. that number is way higher cause of imperfect method on how prematch desertion is determined from the data. it basically checks on just how many extra human players are per team in every match cause human player replacement is only possible at start of the match. i cant catch prematch desertion if they were not replaced with human player and that happens quite often specially in matches that are not full.
if you check previous debates on desertion, you will notice that map/mode choice is one of the reasons why people desert and map preference system is one of the way on how to fix desertion issue. this is not “luxury” feature, but basic game necessity that will fix some of the game problems.
are people deserting cause they are f2p or cause they dont want to play bad mode/map?
true, but do you believe that they will survive backlash if they only implement this for premium users? i can 100% guarantee review bombing will happen on steam if that is the case.
That’s not what I was referring to. If your presented suggestion would be implemented for all players, nobody would guaranteed it would lower desertion rate in significant manner.
As it is still going to be just preferential.
It’s quite possible that most players would still desert as soon as they wouldn’t get map/mode they wanted to play.
And since the feature would apply to everyone, it would be far less effective than if it was only for active premium account owners.
You just can’t tell how much more effective it would be, and how much desertion would be reduced.
The only thing that can reduce desertion effectively is for the devs to stop tolerating bypassing of the system and implement punishments.
Yes, once or twice a person will desert even with punishments. But it’s pretty obvious that this is something that would clearly and effectively reduce desertion in significant manner. Especially if feature like locking factions presets until deserted match ends is going to be implemented.
Whereas yours, is just some wishful thinking that may not turn out the way you think at all. It’s just speculation.
Devs should never allow to be blackmailed by spoiled f2p players who never supported the game.
We still live in capitalism, not in socialism.
If you want to boycott the game, the only legitimate and fair move is to stop playing it.
Devs either will miss your presence and thus accept your demands.
Or your presence simply won’t be needed. And the game is not for you. It’s that simple.
Review bombing is shameless activism that’s mostly not in favor of all players. As it is activately hurting the game.
Which is why the best game in the world struggles to get proper filled matches and had a “growth” of like 40k people in 20 years and like 2,5 releases.
Keeping this mentality and we will maybe reach +100k in 2030 or so.
