98 replies to this topic

[Appogee]

It takes a lot of time, effort and skill to create a great multiplayer map. That's why we see relatively few of them in most multi-player games.

However, playing on the same old maps over and over gets dull. And dull is the enemy of a game's longevity.

That's why I'd like the devs to reconsider and use procedurally-generated random maps (''PGRM'') in Community Warfare.

For who don't know what a PGRM is: basically, your computer builds a map and terrain using a set of 'terrain building'' rules which randomly allocate hills, valleys and other terrain features. The map building is seeded by a single random number, so that anyone who puts the same number into the map creation engine will end up with exactly the same map. It's how Minecraft maps are created.

MWO could use the same approach, with modular ''terrain sets'' which determine the colour palette, environmental conditions, and basic type of terrain. A PGRM could be replicated client-side simply by telling each player's PC what tile set to use, and which random number to seed the PGRM engine.

Now, I do realise that PG maps wont be as good as hand-crafted multiplayer maps. Most will give an unfair advantage to one side or the other. But when you're simulating a galaxy, across hundreds of worlds and hundreds of games, the unfair advantages will even out for everyone over time. Further, that's what fighting in the IS invasion would be like... MechWarriors encountering different terrains on alien worlds, and having to do the best they can to fight from disdavantaged positions when they encounter them.

But most importantly of all, the game would never get dull. Each drop would be a new adventure. Instead of 'Yawn, Tourmeline again, all trudge to wreckage hill at d4 ... again'' your team would have to decide on the fly which way to go, which terrain features to use to advantage, etc.

Edited by Appogee, 12 April 2013 - 02:48 PM.

[p00k]

i like procedurally generated maps. no annoying terrain "features" to get glitched on

[Alistair Winter]

I'm Alistair Winter and I support this idea.

Not to mention it actually makes scouts [more] useful. No more of this:

"Guys, I've scouted ahead and seen the enemy, they're at-"
"- the ridge, where they always are, thanks."

Edited by Alistair Winter, 12 April 2013 - 02:40 PM.

[Darius Deadeye]

Completely agree. Why this isn't being worked into the game is beyond me.

Especially considering the meta side of things; we WILL be fighting across hundreds different planets, but every time we'll be fighting in the exact same spot, looking remarkably like that exact same spot on a different planet hundreds of light years away. For arena warfare, etc, premade maps make sense. For THIS type of warfare, procedurally generated maps make a helluva lot more sense.

And you're absolutely correct that with the current maps, most of the fights take place in the same spot every single time, diminishing replayability and longevity to a very limited state.

Though chokepoints, map balance, etc is great and all, it's got naught to do with Mechwarrior.

[Quinton99]

Anyone who's been beta testing for a while knows that lack of content *at launch* kills games. You don't get to add things later and tell people "Come back! Our game doesn't suck anymore!" This is precisely why I have recommended MWO to exactly 0 of my friends.

The problem as I see it is that the devs think we care more about balanced maps than we really do, when in reality it's just another random factor that people will write off. If you never see the same map twice why would it bother you? You just shake it off knowing that you won't run into the same problem again.

The other thing they keep saying is it's about a minimum of "performance". I don't really know what to say about that, except that it sounds like misdirection. I would gladly play on a map that looks like something out of Starsiege: Tribes from the late 90s if it means playable framerates and avoiding a stale game.

[Bucser]

The maps are client based and procedural generation requires rewriting of the whole engine/matchmaking system (The computer would not have to only load a premade map, but generate one on every single machine dropped in the battle synched at the same time. If collision is troublesome imagine the variables in this scenario....

(On the other hand as far as i know Cryengine does not support totally randomized assets in a map)

[jeffsw6]

Some of the maps are quite poorly balanced anyway.

Alpine, for example, gives a huge terrain advantage to the North team while the South team basically has to hunker down and wait for enemies to decide which way they'll come from.

I strongly suspect if you could see the map stats on a per-start-point basis, it would indicate that starting position is a significant advantage on some maps. How do I go about placing a question about this in "ask the devs?"

[Iron Frost]

We should make suggestions (preferably in the suggestions forum) that are remotely within the realm of realistic reality. Not this.

[Lukoi Banacek]

How would it not generate potential terrain glitches?

Considering we do not know what CW will look like once it's implemented, do we want matches/CW events skewed randomly by one side getting a potentially massive map advantage due to PG?

I think you guys are minimizing the potential negatives of randomly generated maps. Looking at this idea from the perspective of the constant "groundhog's day" treadmill we're all on in terms of the same maps over and over again, isn't valid from a meta game perspective....we need to see what CW looks like before something PG should even be considered imo.

[Ranek Blackstone]

p00k, on 12 April 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

i like procedurally generated maps. no annoying terrain "features" to get glitched on

I don't know if this is sarcasm, but in a 3d game, procedurally generated maps are nothing BUT glitched to hell terrain features.

[Hellcat420]

they need to make this game like planetside. cod style games are complete /fail for battletech. gets boring way too fast.

[Ryvucz]

I remember a post stating that map generation was avoided due to it being buggy as all hell and not having features and checks the current maps do.

[Traigus]

Ryvucz, on 12 April 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

I remember a post stating that map generation was avoided due to it being buggy as all hell and not having features and checks the current maps do.

yeah, that has generally been the reasoning.


I proposed trying to get more mileage out of the current maps by moving our spawns around the different bases.

http://mwomercs.com/...16#entry2207916

Got spammed off the suggestion page by weapon tweak stuff and SRM complaints in like 3 hours.

[Kristov Kerensky]

OP...6 years of playing Battlefield 2 on the same set of original maps it shipped with, even though myself and the servers I played on had all the addons and extra maps. Know why? Because those maps were the most balanced and fun for playing on..over and over..day after day..week after week...for 6 years.

The maps are a part of the game, all too true, but the reason people STILL play Battlefield 2 today is that the GAMEPLAY is fun and the same map played for the 10000th time doesn't run like it did any other time before. People..they got this nasty habit of doing things you don't expect, even if they KNOW there's a 'right' way to do something, they'll try something else anyway.

Random maps..great concept, horrible when actually implemented for anything but grins and giggles and absolutely detested by anyone doing competative gaming. For MWO, this is even more of a factor because how the team works together is very much determined by the map, something you'll have spent many many hours sitting and learning and understanding. That way you can determine the best allocation of your forces in the most effective manner and have plans set up to deal with variations that your enemy will always introduce. Random maps..you can't practice for those, you don't know what weapons and Mechs will be the most use. And they WILL all too often be totally one sided in their layout, which will do nothing but anger everyone playing.

[Homeless Bill]

As a game programmer, I do not support this idea. Procedural generation is held up by many as some sort of magic solution to fix almost all things. It's really well suited to some, but not to most. Complex map generation and balance aren't strong suits of procedural generation - particularly in this sort of game.

No matter how much time they spend tuning the map generation algorithm, it will result in more glitchy terrain and unbalanced maps than the additional "variety" would be worth. Procedural map generation is often a great way to get an interesting starting point, but it always needs a lot of polishing and tweaking.

Once they finish off the first pass of maps, they'll have enough pre-made objects and texture sets to be able to crank out maps much more quickly. Chill out and wait for that to happen. We have enough balance issues without the maps becoming an absolute ***********.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 12 April 2013 - 03:47 PM.

[SPencil]

No. While a cool idea, the implementation would be complicated as hell and such a system would no doubt push release back a year. Even then, they wouldn't look nearly as nice, they wouldn't run nearly as well, balance would be horrible. It's a non-trivial system that just wouldn't work for MWO.

I'm actually making one on a simple 2D plane and it's still a *****. I can only imagine the horror of 3D.

[drinniol]

Kristov Kerensky, on 12 April 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

OP...6 years of playing Battlefield 2 on the same set of original maps it shipped with, even though myself and the servers I played on had all the addons and extra maps. Know why? Because those maps were the most balanced and fun for playing on..over and over..day after day..week after week...for 6 years.

Let's not forget cs_dust - 13 years and counting.

[Cest7]

1. Randomly generated maps would take up a lot of time to code and extra processing power in the data center to be able to generate and push that data to the client.

2. Having random maps takes map balance and throws it out the window. Unless its limited to modular blocks (which are not that random) there is no regard for map layout, planning, etc.

PGI already shot this down. So, sorry, No.

[Royalewithcheese]

It's a cool concept Although keep in mind who will be programming it...

[Dreamslave]

Yea, I giggled during that one interview where he said the IS is made up of like 3500 planets or something. I was thinking "oh yea, 3500 planets? You mean a dozen maps on repeat, right?"