map expansion packs

[regal folio]

An pack for 4-6$ that resets the population on your current map and adds new species to that maps roster one pack should include about 10 species and may be a bit of storyline an idea could be new map once a year and new map expansion pack twice a year.

I will make a concept for every map I think could really use it.

https://discord.com/channels/393040947006406657/1248312931339468832

https://discord.com/channels/393040947006406657/1248316858931875910

https://discord.com/channels/393040947006406657/1248319376717779058

https://discord.com/channels/393040947006406657/1248321894684426391

[icy matrix]

I was called crazy for suggesting a dlc for a dlc...
Just joking. I think this is better than my suggestion and I would like if the devs considered this, after all adding new species is not cheap in terms of development time and I think many players would throw more money at the devs for their work if that means more content.

[opal plover]

I think it’d be a good way to capitalize off of progress the game devs have already made as well as do some backfilling. But also I like the idea of it being free to an extent.

[timid totem]

How will this work with the current multiplayer system?

[regal folio]

If the original host had the dlc the new animals could be on the map if not the animals won't be on the map

[regal folio]

I added 4 map expansion pack concepts to the post

[fair lark]

If, as EW often says, the current map populations are already maxed out for what the engine can handle, how do you propose adding more species to a map without removing any of the current population for those who do not want to buy the expansion DLC for that map?

[regal folio]

I can tell you

[fair lark]

Reduce the overall population of a map that someone has already paid for and the outrage would be colossal compared to the bear population reset revolt.

[regal folio]

So if you get the dlc the population gets reset to different home ranges and species sdistrubutions most maps that I proposed have home ranges on nearly the whole map so you can definitely just do that. If you don't have the dlc your map doesn't get reset.

It's possible especially if they make money with it 🤑

[fair lark]

And multiplayer? What if a person wants the same map as theirs?

[regal folio]

I answered the multiplayer question many times here already but I don't see the problem if the person that made the lobby gas the dlc it's the map with dlc and if not it's the map without dlc

Imma head to BBQ now 😌

[fair lark]

It does matter because some info is shared onto your solo map. This is pretty much building a new engine to cater and adapt for both formats. It would be better to start from scratch and build a new game.

[hybrid snow]

I’d pay for this

[fair lark]

Multiplayer is already broken on Xbox. They would have to fix that first. This proposal will be bugged as hell and further corrupt the entire game. With the current issues, I do not trust them to build a stable enough system that could handle this.

I think they should do the backfills where needed for all players and reprice all map DLCs to 15-20 pounds/dollars.

[barren current]

That would be one way to do it (I can’t think of another way)

[regal folio]

No it wouldn't for those who buy the dlc they could copy the map data and change the population as you basically get a new map population wise.

[regal folio]

I know that it's possible technically quit easily. But if it isn't ew won't do it. So no reason to be against the idea if it would work perfectly as it would propably do.
The people who don't want to pay extra for more content don't have to them

[fair lark]

Nothing against you personally but I am against the idea. For the reasons stated above and in principle. In my opinion, raising the costs of all map DLCs (old & new) to pay for backfills would be a much simpler, cleaner and better solution.

[regal folio]

How I would do it I would just copy the map into another file remove all animals and do completely new populations and home ranges for each animal. As ew

[rustic turtle]

if this happens thats just way too many species on one map

[fair lark]

Neither can I. Any solution would cause some upset but people will adjust far quicker to raised prices than any other suggestion.

[regal folio]

I explained how it would work before and it would never ad more them 7 big game species with the maps that I proposed them on never having more them 10 big game species that would still be easily possible if you do the right home ranges

[rustic turtle]

too much work, even with smaller species its a lot

[regal folio]

If they only make one map a year this would be a solution to still add new Content without needing to do an entirely new map

[rustic turtle]

imo i would rather have a new map than a few new species

[regal folio]

Me too, but I don't know if that is possible