Add more maps in the rotation, please

IMO i think increasing the number of maps from 4 to 6(maybe 8 but 6 is the magical number) would suffice. and keep rotating then every month would increase the variability and still we would pretty much see then all.

or why not luck number 7? 6 new maps every month and 1 "old" map picked by voting

 

If you mean each week would have new and different maps, then BM would need to spend 4-5 more time on building maps, which it something they might not have resources to do. But yeah, it would be nice.

Oh, ok. I knew it sounded too good to be true With only 6 maps.. I don't know. If you would still keep this current system where all the maps in the rotation are very similar, it would mean very little variation. I think that the daily map thing would only make sense if the maps were completely different, both visually and gameplay wise, and there would be tons of them.

There is that possibility but I don't think the majority would take ratings so seriously that they would simply not play during certain days in order to protect their ratings. It could happen with maps that are universally disliked though. If I didn't like the map of the day, I could see myself playing some other game instead. But as long as there wasn't any clear bias (Celestial Koi etc.) I don't think there would be a problem.

Sure, but discouraging people from playing can be either direct or indirect. On one hand if you make some changes to the map system, it might lead to some people playing less or even quitting the game. But on the other hand if you do not make changes, and keep the maps as they are, that might also lead to people playing less and quitting because they get bored.

No matter what you do, someone will have a problem with it. It's the same thing with card nerfing. Nerfing Vibrant Pain might anger some people, and a couple of them might even quit, but the majority would like it. But if card balancing is not done because of the fear of angering some people, how many of that majority will quit because they feel the game is not balanced? Whether or not it's maps or cards, the main question is would the change improve the overall experience of the majority. If the answer is yes, then who cares if some small minority has a problem with it?

But we will never know what the "perfect" map system would be unless it was either tested, or we had some kind of 1000-player poll about it. Opinions of a handful of users on this topic, myself included, are pretty much meaningless, because all we are doing is talking theory from a very subjective standpoint.

 

Count me in for the veto system, 6 map and 2 veto would be answome, no wounder most good strategy game using this system.

 

More maps = more build diversity in an ideal world and more reason to play. Adding more maps, and balancing the multiplayer would be a fantastic way to get players to stay playing (players like myself).

 

I agree completely with Scared Little Girl, Stexe, and Pilgrim Bailey. We need more variety. It shouldn't be much more work- there are tons of maps that were previously available that most of us have never played and would like to. Having access to more multiplayer maps at a time would add a great deal of value to the game in my opinion.

I do not think limiting the number of maps so people can create custom builds that work only on the maps in question is a good idea. I think that good decks should be versatile enough to work on a great number of maps. Sure, every individual map may favor one style, but a build's value as a whole should be based upon its ability to take on a broad variety of possible circumstances. Those circumstances are limited by limiting the number of maps in play, and I think the game suffers as a whole not only because it makes it repetitive, but because people exploit the fact that they don't have to adapt to as many different circumstances.

If you care to vote on this issue I made a separate thread before SLG pointed this one out to me. My proposed idea is that each time you start a game you have a 50% chance of starting on one of the new maps, and a 50% chance of starting on a random map from every map ever in play. https://forums.cardhunter.com/threads/repetitive-maps.5211/#post-52663

 

Hey everyone, check out the news!

 

When I play Card Hunter, I pretend I am playing Fire Emblem. This illusion I cast upon myself only breaks in that Fire Emblem maps are much larger. I would love to play on larger maps, if it was viable.

 

Saw that and almost pooped myself. Do you think Koi is coming back??

 

Woo! Break out those walls and teleports!

(Teleporting to the middle of Koi was the awesomest thing evar.)

 

Koi is back, but looking different. I think it's pretty ugly, with the green water and dark grey floors, but it's much easier to reach the center now.

 

That might work, but I fear that players might build for the 50% stable map to almost guarantee a win on it, and make builds that focus on being balanced sub-optimal. I think having a set rotation of maps (4 or so) with one different random map each day being throw into the mix (from all previous PvP map choices) would be the best move. It would leave a little bit to chance on the maps, but also keep it interesting and diverse.

 

Stexe, I think Lord Ra didn't suggest having a single stable map but a group of them like in the current system. In fact he suggested the same system as you just did but with different odds.

 

Ah, okay. I must have misread it (I read it last night at like 2 AM before going to sleep and just decided to post now). I thought it was a single stable map with a 50% chance to be some other map. Then yes, I agree with his idea!

 

It's Koi 2: Electric Boogaloo.

 

I've played on it a bunch now and I think it's pretty cool

 

With so many bridges the new Koi reminds me of my island affair map.
It doesnt seem to be Koi anymore, i hated that map,really,with all my heart, but now seems the basic idea is not there anymore.
I would just had a extra row on each side (left and right) and add a blocked square or 2 there where ppl could hide in cover.

but lets see how it goes