188 replies to this topic

[Irreverence]

I do 2d and 3d art for a living. I would GIVE my time to create content for this game just so that it would HAVE content. Instead I just had to stop playing.

Edited by Irreverence, 25 March 2013 - 05:26 PM.

[Xenoid]

Mark me down as a supporter of this. As mentioned previously, having submissions available in the testing grounds would be the best way to review maps IMHO.

Having user submitted maps would be only good for PGI. 1) a steady supply of fresh content, which this game sorely needs, 2) attracting and keeping more new players on account of the fresh content, and 3) a community that feels it's part of the development and the sense of satisfaction that comes with it.

[Tice Daurus]

GoTeamVenture, on 25 March 2013 - 05:07 PM, said:

...and 3) a community that feels it's part of the development and the sense of satisfaction that comes with it.

This is the part that I like the most. I think in order for this game to succeed, the game HAS to have the fans involved and feel like they have a real stake in the game and further help PGI.

[Alex Wolfe]

Yes, please.

Valve does it. It works.

PGI, if you have to copy someone, please stop trying to be a smaller Electronic Arts. Copy Valve.

[jakucha]

Alex Wolfe, on 25 March 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

Yes, please.

Valve does it. It works.

PGI, if you have to copy someone, please stop trying to be a smaller Electronic Arts. Copy Valve.

After watching the PAX panel, and hearing how much effort and time it takes to create one map, comparing for example 1 TF2 hat to 1 Mechwarrior map is way off.

I'd still like for this to happen, but with 1 really talented person working on his own time to make his own map, it would probably take 2-3 years to create a map that meets their standards, if not longer unfortunately.

Edited by jakucha, 25 March 2013 - 05:28 PM.

[Irreverence]

Workflow is an important factor here. Assets need to be developed with the intention for them to be used on more than one map. In this particular field, the key to succeed in doing that is to design the assets, buildings, wreckage, crashed ships, etc. in a way that they can be placed on any map, and not look out of place. That way, any person can pull those assets and use them on any particular map they plan on building.

When you make assets unique to any one map, you're basically shooting yourself in the foot nowadays.

Edited by Irreverence, 25 March 2013 - 05:37 PM.

[Alex Wolfe]

jakucha, on 25 March 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

After watching the PAX panel, and hearing how much effort and time it takes to create one map, comparing for example 1 TF2 hat to 1 Mechwarrior map is way off.

I'd still like for this to happen, but with 1 really talented person working on his own time to make his own map, it would probably take 2-3 years to create a map that meets their standards, if not longer unfortunately.

You know what is also created by players in said TF2?

Spoiler

Maps.

If anything, adopting a more open policy, being less secretive and less dismissive of their own playerbase may pay off for PGIGP in the long run. Heck, might even make the game recover from the player-bleeding nosedive after the utter disaster of consumables-COOL SHOT-third person's in joke's on you founders.

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 25 March 2013 - 05:39 PM.

[Tice Daurus]

Jackson Jax Teller, on 25 March 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

yeah TF hats dont take two hundred fifty THOUSAND dollars to make

Guys something we probably have to consider on this is that they are just starting to establish new code and having the maps work with the new code could have been a problem. I remember when the first couple of maps came out in the CB portion, they had a crapload of bugs that they had to iron. Since then, the newer maps have been cleaner, less fraught with bugs and errors, and better made. I think as they continue to evolve, the maps will take less time, cost less to make and have more features like destructible and interactive environments.

Each map has gotten better and better. However, I think that we as fans can help create even more maps with our inventive minds and help take some of the load off of PGI in the future, if given an opportunity to assist them in the future.

[Radko]

Jackson Jax Teller, on 25 March 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

yeah TF hats dont take two hundred fifty THOUSAND dollars to make

At the risk of displaying too much negativity: Neither should Alpine. That's just a height map with some mostly-repeating textures, some rocks, some buildings, a few vehicles.

I can understand a mech being a labor of love, but maps are just maps. Users have been making maps for decades.

edit: A more reasonable concern is that it takes a lot of investment to create a system for automated user-submitted, user-distributed content. But this doesn't have to be Steam workshop. Just allowing people to drop a mech into a custom map for testing purposes would go a long way.

Edited by Radko, 25 March 2013 - 06:13 PM.

[darjk]

please devs make this happen

[Synaps3]

Simply magic. THIS MUST HAPPEN.

[S3dition]

A profit sharing system would be better. I actually posted a thread about this months ago. Sony is already investing in this, as well as a few other companies. The idea is that players can make content that passes through community and then developer checks. If a user submitted item is sold, the creator gets a cut of the profit. This gets professional artists involved and gives incentives for people who may not necessarily be an active player.

This isn't a new concept, and even ready-made engine developers like Unity have extensive 3rd party markets that directly support their product. It's a great method for growing content without significant developer overhead.

However, it has to be accepted that not all content can mesh perfectly with existing content. Some will, especially with excellent and experienced artists, but not everything. It is worth noting that not everything has to be physical art, but can be voice acting and GUI/Interface art as well.

[Tice Daurus]

S3dition, on 25 March 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

A profit sharing system would be better. I actually posted a thread about this months ago. Sony is already investing in this, as well as a few other companies. The idea is that players can make content that passes through community and then developer checks. If a user submitted item is sold, the creator gets a cut of the profit. This gets professional artists involved and gives incentives for people who may not necessarily be an active player.

This isn't a new concept, and even ready-made engine developers like Unity have extensive 3rd party markets that directly support their product. It's a great method for growing content without significant developer overhead.

However, it has to be accepted that not all content can mesh perfectly with existing content. Some will, especially with excellent and experienced artists, but not everything. It is worth noting that not everything has to be physical art, but can be voice acting and GUI/Interface art as well.

See I think this also could be a great incentive as well if PGI were to adopt this as well. If you not only give people the opportunity to help create maps and submit them a small share of the profit could be given for the purchase of the map created.

Also I just wanted to say as a side note, I want to thank everyone so far for doing their best to keep this, for the most part, fairly flame-free and a highly interesting discussion.

To recap as well, I think we've established some ideas, where if PGI could help get us a basic map creator, we could establish basic maps to start out with and if given the chance to come up with some really decent map content.

Another thing would be to have a forum or sub forum added for possibly fan art where we could help create, submit, and talk about our works in progress about map design and be able to player and developer review the content ideas. Once fully submitted, the Developers could review finalized submissions, give it a yes/no/needs more work stamp on it, and if the map looks to be decent, PGI could make an offer to have the content become theirs.

Of course PGI would need to establish some legal parameters in order to get this established that once a fan/user submits the work, it's theirs and they own it, and can take the map and make any alterations on to it in order to make the map workable. But overall, it would help the art department to where they would have to spend less work designing and just work on the maps to make sure they are free from bugs or questionable content. I could be wrong on this as there might me more I don't know, but I'm hoping PGI can help clear that up if/when they come here to comment on this topic.

I'm not sure if I'm forgetting anything else here. Thoughts, suggestions, more comments?

Edited by Tice Daurus, 25 March 2013 - 06:43 PM.

[S3dition]

Tice Daurus, on 25 March 2013 - 06:32 PM, said:

See I think this also could be a great incentive as well if PGI were to adopt this as well. If you not only give people the opportunity to help create maps and submit them a small share of the profit could be given for the purchase of the map created.

Also I just wanted to say as a side note, I want to thank everyone so far for doing their best to keep this, for the most part, fairly flame-free and a highly interesting discussion.

To recap as well, I think we've established some ideas, where if PGI could help get us a basic map creator, we could establish basic maps to start out with and if given the chance to come up with some really decent map content.

Another thing would be to have a forum or sub forum added for possibly fan art where we could help create, submit, and talk about our works in progress about map design and be able to player and developer review the content ideas. Once fully submitted, the Developers could review finalized submissions, give it a yes/no/needs more work stamp on it, and if the map looks to be decent, PGI could make an offer to have the content become theirs.

Of course PGI would need to establish some legal parameters in order to get this established that once a fan/user submits the work, it's theirs and they own it, and can take the map and make any alterations on to it in order to make the map workable. But overall, it would help the art department to where they would have to spend less work designing and just work on the maps to make sure they are free from bugs or questionable content. I could be wrong on this as there might me more I don't know, but I'm hoping PGI can help clear that up if/when they come here to comment on this topic.

I'm not sure if I'm forgetting anything else here. Thoughts, suggestions, more comments?

Well, there is more to map making than static meshes and height maps. You have spawn points, control points, making sure it's fully baked and walkable (so mechs don't get stuck, etc). Maps are actually the most complex and difficult of all the content, because developers have to go over it inch by inch to verify it. If the map fails, the developers get blamed, no the creator, so that's something to keep in mind.

PGI would need to start small, and include the ability for custom camo patterns, cockpit items, UI elements, sounds, etc. They already mentioned the ability to customize your mech's physical appearance and this could include "nose art."

But they could also put a secondary market online. Users could get items for events or a small random drop chance (so special camo patterns, cockpit items, etc. Nothing that changes gameplay, just asthetics). This would work similar to hats in TF2, but be awarded only after the end of the mission (no, a hat WOULD NOT pop out of a dead mech for you to run by and pick up). Players could then put these up an auction house for MC, and PGI could take 10% of the final MC price.

Lets say you get an Alexander Kerensky bobble head (.001% chance of drop). You could sell it for 1000mc, and PGI takes 100 as a transaction fee. You made 900mc, PGI pulled 100mc out of the market, and someone got a rare bobble head.

Maybe "drop" is a poor term. How about salvage? You have a chance to salvage rare vanity items (think of them as kill trophies) at the conclusion of a drop. If these items could be created by the player base, it would generate a lot of items with minimal overhead for PGI. But they do have to invest the time and money into the infrastructure first, so they have to be willing to take the risk that it will work.

[jakucha]

Alex Wolfe, on 25 March 2013 - 05:36 PM, said:

You know what is also created by players in said TF2?

Spoiler

Maps.

If anything, adopting a more open policy, being less secretive and less dismissive of their own playerbase may pay off for PGIGP in the long run. Heck, might even make the game recover from the player-bleeding nosedive after the utter disaster of consumables-COOL SHOT-third person's in joke's on you founders.

TF2 maps are pretty small in general, and are often mirrored. They take effort, but probably not as much as these ones.

Edited by jakucha, 25 March 2013 - 07:28 PM.

[S3dition]

jakucha, on 25 March 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

TF2 maps are pretty small in general, and are often mirrored. They take effort, but probably not as much as these ones.

TF2 maps are much more vertical than MWO, but they're made for very high speed gameplay encompassing, what, 5 classes? It's pretty easy to make an FPS death match or capture the flag map. Making a map that allows dozens (and counting) of weapon configurations, with each weapon having a radically different battlefield dynamic is far harder.

[Team Leader]

I was a fan of Allfex's maps before it was cool

On topic, I have no skills with making anything of any sort. I wish I did. I would really want to help. I wish they would start crowd sourcing, imagine how many more maps they could crank out.. Probably entire planets worth, if they took the map maker guys and just made them Ok the community's maps!

Edited by Team Leader, 25 March 2013 - 07:41 PM.

[Tice Daurus]

Let's also add to the mix that we all have to remember that when the game first came out, they had the old code from MechWarrior from Activision which would NOT work with the CryEngine. So trial and error costs would have racked up at first because they had to write all new code, not only for the new game engine but also to add in how maps would effect the netcode as well. AND these maps will down the road have some interactive and destructible elements in the game as well. Plus different times of day, different weather and environmental conditions and lighting conditions.

Edited by Tice Daurus, 25 March 2013 - 07:41 PM.

[MonkeyCheese]

I really hope they work out the paperwork side of this so that they could own user created content, imagine having like 50-100 different maps one for each planet that we battle over.

[S3dition]

MonkeyCheese, on 25 March 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

I really hope they work out the paperwork side of this so that they could own user created content, imagine having like 50-100 different maps one for each planet that we battle over.

Not to be a naysayer, but that's too excessive. Assuming a map is only 10 megs, 100 maps would be a gig. A mere 10 planets would mean 10 gigs of hard drive space. This means having, say, 40 unique worlds could then burn 20 - 40 gigs of data, just for the maps. It's more likely that there will be 50 - 100 maps total.

This data could be compressed, but then you have a lot of loading time. You could procedurally generate it based on text file with a pixel map (much like the way Spore does it) but again, very long loading times.

Still, 50 - 100 maps is quite a bit. If the maps are smaller (in the 2 - 5 meg range) then you could obvious have additional maps. I should crack open a game file and see how large the maps are...