DLC Maps/Map Packs
While I dislike buying a game only to spend more money to fully unlock it, I would be happy to buy DLC maps/map packs occasionally. I think maps should be obtainable in-game and we could use Rainbow...
Forum Discussion
@TLEsquire wrote:
@spIash_damageI saw the rainbow star proposal but I'm not sure how it changes the concern. Rainbow stars are still primarily a bought currency. Since I have collected every free rainbow star available and still only reached 1000 last week, with a starting gift of 500 (I think?), we are still looking at approximately 5 months to get 1000 rainbow stars. Leading to part of our player base buying them straight off and having access immediately, some spending months earning stars to open one, and others never bothering to spend the stars on that at all. Without a fuller player base this could be problematic to filling games?
Indeed.
Without $ in a low player base, how can developers justify creating new maps? That’s my only concern is there’s not enough revenue to justify more content without more money.
By allowing DLC maps to be earned and bought, it would mend the gap between those with maps and those without, kinda like being able to earn Hover Goat and Stump in GW2?
EDIT: regardless of how maps would be added, where do you ( @TLEsquire - or anyone who’d like to join the discussion) see this game’s community in a year?
The player base didn't get this low on its own. I won't rehash all of the reasons the player base has shrunk because they are all over the forum.
So now we are here, what do the devs do to have a game that anyone is still playing next year? I don't have a great answer for that. It has become a catch 22 type of situation. You want the devs to have more money to create more content and support the game. One way to do that is to sell maps. Splitting the limited player base by having different rotations of maps for different players seems like it will make all multiplayer aspects harder to play which can further limit the player base if people cannot find full lobbies.
While I wouldn't enjoy having alternate characters behind a paywall, it would be less detrimental to a fundamental part of the game, like keeping lobbies full. If it were a pay/earn wall, like Hover Goat and Torchwood that would be manageable but I imagine the devs aren't going to build gnome trials at this point if they haven't already planned them, so it will likely be star based. We already have struggles with the rainbow star economy and of course if the price turns out to be 10,000 stars that would get ugly quickly.
I'm not psychic though. P2P maps may not play out that way. Maybe doing something is better than nothing, even at the risk of losing the current players to endless lobby hunts. I appreciate that you are searching for answers to the games development problems. The potential for undesirable side effects on the maps plan would just need to be considered. They aren't fully getting rid of most of us PvZ diehards no matter what they try (within reason) as long as the game remains playable.
Edit - this discussion is giving me reason to stash away my rainbow stars like a squirrel hoarding nuts for a long winter lol
@TLEsquire wrote:
The player base didn't get this low on its own. I won't rehash all of the reasons the player base has shrunk because they are all over the forum.
So now we are here, what do the devs do to have a game that anyone is still playing next year? I don't have a great answer for that. It has become a catch 22 type of situation. You want the devs to have more money to create more content and support the game. One way to do that is to sell maps. Splitting the limited player base by having different rotations of maps for different players seems like it will make all multiplayer aspects harder to play which can further limit the player base if people cannot find full lobbies.
While I wouldn't enjoy having alternate characters behind a paywall, it would be less detrimental to a fundamental part of the game, like keeping lobbies full. If it were a pay/earn wall, like Hover Goat and Torchwood that would be manageable but I imagine the devs aren't going to build gnome trials at this point if they haven't already planned them, so it will likely be star based. We already have struggles with the rainbow star economy and of course if the price turns out to be 10,000 stars that would get ugly quickly.
I'm not psychic though. P2P maps may not play out that way. Maybe doing something is better than nothing, even at the risk of losing the current players to endless lobby hunts. I appreciate that you are searching for answers to the games development problems. The potential for undesirable side effects on the maps plan would just need to be considered. They aren't fully getting rid of most of us PvZ diehards no matter what they try (within reason) as long as the game remains playable.Pay To Play isn’t really applicable when things can be earned in game?
Characters for sell = pay to win unless they’re obtainable in-game and I’m against both ideas (maps and characters) unless they’re earnable in-game.
This is like a kid who doesn’t have money to get a car because he’s too young to drive but can’t land a job without a mode of transportation.
I feel like something’s gotta give (we need more content) or the community will suffer and am really just tossing around ideas here.
I don’t know what I was thinking but I assumed people would give additional examples of how to generate money instead of debating and picking apart an idea I thought of in a matter of seconds. I truly should’ve worded the post differently and that’s my fault.
Before I go any further, I’m not bitter at the direction of this thread and most people enjoy debates in forums so I don’t wanna sound like it’s my way or the highway. I should’ve phrased my initial post differently and asked people for additional ideas or input on how to improve mine. If this is an unpopular idea here, no biggie. 🤷🏼♂️
I was simply trying to come up with an idea to generate more content that could be earned in-game and purchased so both gamers and developers might benefit. LoL! I digress.
- @spIash_damage That's okay lol I know you're not used to it being this way. At least it was an idea, and those always help.
@shurikeninja wrote:
@spIash_damageThat's okay lol I know you're not used to it being this way. At least it was an idea, and those always help.I'm on the PC or I'd have the crying laughing icon here. My favorite reply of the decade (see what I did there)..!
My thing is, nobody has even asked about implementation of this idea and only assumed it wouldn't work. If you let people know in advance that the beginning of the next quarter would have a map pack for sell (I give this to @Iron_Guard8 maybe breaking up packs to buy them in increments isn't a good idea; need to keep them in packs of 3) for X amount of Rainbow Stars, we could have THREE FULL months to save! I just pulled a rabbit out of the hat at the pricing of stars but we could tweak that total (to something obtainable in-game) that would reward people who play loyally with the chance to earn these maps for free (given we play often enough). To me, this suggestion would give more content to the community, reward loyal players, and keep the community playing when we finish our prize maps. Inevitably, we're going to get tired of playing the same 3-4 maps in each mode, even when the mechanics and balancing are fixed and that's what prompted this post.
My idea would look like this if it was implemented today:Q2 (April 1st Map Pack release date) - Map Pack 1 featuring 2 TT and 1 TV map from GW1.
Q3 (August) - Map Pack 2 featuring 1 TT and 2 TV maps from GW2.
Q4 (November) - Map Pack 3 featuring 1 TT and 2 TV maps from GW1
Q1 (January) Map Pack 4 featuring all 2 TT and 1 TV map from GW2
These map packs would need to cost the maximum number of obtainable stars (per quarter) and those of us able to REALLY play the game could earn extra bulbs (to help with cosmetics), etc.
Again.... I think I worded the initial post wrong and got a little overzealous with the assumption we could expand on ideas with an open mind or suggest alternate ideas. Thinking I put the horse before the carriage? LoL... whatever, I tried. (need facepalm smiley [at me] here).....
I also think everyone who's replied would buy a map pack, if it was released today (not saying they wouldn't complain - but still)....
I have zero problem with ideas to help the game @spIash_damage . And the idea of earning the maps via game play or buying them with RL money is better than straight up only getting maps via cash as I've seen elsewhere. Keep things coming!
My issue, which I had posted earlier, was that some people will play a lot less and won't even earn the maps via playing unless the threshold is very low to earn them (which would make it difficult to justify paying money for them). For example, I have a few friends that play but very little and haven't really done much with the prize map or weekly challenges at all so wouldn't earn these maps and a lot of people play these games super casually but still queue for stuff and it would leave them out and could cause havoc in the queues.
Cosmetics are a popular way these types of games make money, it's huge in Overwatch despite that game being full price for example, and PvZ shooters have always been a cut above the competition for cosmetics already. Along with that I would gladly (as I previously posted) would pay for more slots per character. I'm sure there are other ways to help keep the game going so we get more content as well.
@Iron_Guard8 I really do understand your point but we're seeing TONS of people running around with legendary costumes (that they PAID for). PC is a small player base that .... what? we'll save? Not being rude, you know I wish we could cross play (not "us," but literally you and I as buddies) as much as anyone but that's definitely not happening. For PS4, there's still time to present something like this and I do believe it would save the game.
If the devs can't spend more money on creating new content (my assumption based on current rate of player base falling), I don't see how we will receive new content (not already created waiting to be released). If that's the case, I don't see the community lasting as long as GW2.
EDIT: Typo
