Why More Maps?
Why do people want more maps?
Imagine a huge map. Now cut it into 9 smaller maps. Is that any better? You started with 1 map and ended up with 9. More is better, right? Not in this case? Then you really can’t compare on map count.
What about empty maps? People don’t like empty maps. The more maps we have in the game, the more spread out the population will be, so the remaining maps will get pretty empty. How is this better?
What about exploring? Everybody likes exploring, except for the people who really don’t. Tangled Depths had a lot to explore, and to be fair, some people did enjoy exploring it, but for most people it was a pain. How many people just joined a train to complete the map and then didn’t bother exploring after that (except to complete it with another character). Okay, this is my weakest point, since a lot of people like exploring, but many of those people will abandon the map after, creating empty maps.
So, why this obsession with map count and the number of maps?
I will assume you never played GW1.
1) Just more maps is A-Nets assumtion what player wants
2) If you deliver quality maps where people just have a wonderfull time to follow their hobby people could care less the map is empty or not.
3) People don’t want more just more maps.
They want the continent complete they thought they pay for when buying GW.
On top they want they beloved Cantha and Elona back.
So we are not talking 9 maps here we talk maybe 50 or more.
Couple that with the quality they delivered in GW 1 and we start talking.
4) An MMO means massive multiplayer and this is mostly misunderstood.
You CAN play with other people but you DO NOT HAVE TO.
A-Net is absolutely underestimating how many people actually do not wish to play
in big groups.
They would like to !!!! adventure !!!! with 3-4 of their friend NOT zombie zerking with 50 others. People want adventures and exploring back not close combat on purposely tiny areas
I don’t even have words for how far you are off the topic with your assumption
of 9 maps or what you said in general
Why do people want more maps?
Imagine a huge map. Now cut it into 9 smaller maps. Is that any better? You started with 1 map and ended up with 9. More is better, right? Not in this case? Then you really can’t compare on map count.
What about empty maps? People don’t like empty maps. The more maps we have in the game, the more spread out the population will be, so the remaining maps will get pretty empty. How is this better?
What about exploring? Everybody likes exploring, except for the people who really don’t. Tangled Depths had a lot to explore, and to be fair, some people did enjoy exploring it, but for most people it was a pain. How many people just joined a train to complete the map and then didn’t bother exploring after that (except to complete it with another character). Okay, this is my weakest point, since a lot of people like exploring, but many of those people will abandon the map after, creating empty maps.
So, why this obsession with map count and the number of maps?
I will assume you never played GW1.
1) Just more maps is A-Nets assumtion what player wants
2) If you deliver quality maps where people just have a wonderfull time to follow their hobby people could care less the map is empty or not.
3) People don’t want more just more maps.
They want the continent complete they thought they pay for when buying GW.
On top they want they beloved Cantha and Elona back.
So we are not talking 9 maps here we talk maybe 50 or more.
Couple that with the quality they delivered in GW 1 and we start talking.4) An MMO means massive multiplayer and this is mostly misunderstood.
You CAN play with other people but you DO NOT HAVE TO.
A-Net is absolutely underestimating how many people actually do not wish to play
in big groups.
They would like to !!!! adventure !!!! with 3-4 of their friend NOT zombie zerking with 50 others. People want adventures and exploring back not close combat on purposely tiny areasI don’t even have words for how far you are off the topic with your assumption
of 9 maps or what you said in general
I did play GW1, and I think the GW2 maps are far more interesting than the GW1 maps. So, I don’t want to return to flat, empty maps where I have to go around because I can’t jump over a log.
Also, the maps in GW1 only worked as well as they did because they were instanced, which encourages small maps. GW2 was designed with larger, dynamic world maps instead. It’s a completely different system. Maybe some people do want instanced maps, but it’s way too late to change that in GW2.
They would like to !!!! adventure !!!! with 3-4 of their friend NOT zombie zerking with 50 others. People want adventures and exploring back not close combat on purposely tiny areas.
That describes what I’m looking for in this game.
Anyone who is asking for more new maps is probably asking for a greater amount of, and perhaps variety of, content. They don’t want one of the HoT-sized maps cut into 9 small maps, they want some number of HoT-sized maps greater than 3.5.
Empty maps are not a problem so long as the content in the maps supports playing alone or in a small group. It’s only a problem when doing the stuff that the map exists for requires a large number of players. Also, with mega-server, I never see a really empty map. The problem is that the vision for GW2 involves lots of large events with 50 or more players combining to do whatever. Dividing the player-base into too many parts — which could happen with more maps — doesn’t matter as much with a different vision for how content is delivered.
My biggest problem with the new maps is the wait for the meta-event after all pre-events are completed. Sometimes when you get a taxi all pre-events are completed so you just have to sit and wait for 40 minutes.
Imagine a huge map. Now cut it into 9 smaller maps. Is that any better? You started with 1 map and ended up with 9. More is better, right? Not in this case? Then you really can’t compare on map count.
Actually, due to the player cap per map, yes, that is better.
There’s also a recent tendency to have one meta event per map, which would mean more maps give more variety.
Sure, there are other factors than the number of maps (map size, content density, variety, quality) but the number isn’t nearly as irrelevant as you make it out to be.