43 replies to this topic

[Spyder228]

I'd love for there to be UGC. I know the devs said it takes $200k to make a new map. Why not plow $200k into the development of a map maker for the community to generate content for you for free? Even if it's just re-using exsisting map assets I'm sure the community could come up with some good maps.

Give the community a way to vote on the maps prior to their inclusion in a special testing queue. That way only the good ones, made by dedicated users will be selected. I'm sure it'd cost less money to make bug fixes to an exsisting map than it does to create a whole new one from scratch.

Edited by Spyder228, 20 May 2013 - 08:27 AM.

[Keifomofutu]

Spyder228, on 20 May 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

I'd love for there to be UGC. I know the devs said it takes $200k to make a new map. Why not plow $200k into the development of a map maker for the community to generate content for you for free? Even if it's just re-using exsisting map assets I'm sure the community could come up with some good maps.

Give the community a way to vote on the maps prior to their inclusion in a special testing queue. That way only the good ones, made by dedicated users will be selected. I'm sure it'd cost less money to make bug fixes to an exsisting map than it does to a whole new one from scratch.

I really like player created maps. Official maps are generally the best balanced, but player created content can be very creative and unique. Just keep the two map queues separate and player maps optional.

[Sephlock]

$200k for Alpine?

Link to source, please .

[karoushi]

Two hundred grand?

Either that is a falsehood or they really toss everything they got at it, sad thing is we still end up with a lot of no man's lands.

They should trim their budget as much as possible, even think about making a random generating procedure that you can switch the elements (trees, buildings, land, detail, etc) and randomly generate any map that you want which can then be refined and modified into an actual map.

This is how I do it on my game and it has saved me hundreds if not thousands of man hours of, for example, in the jungle, all those trees and vines I would of had to place by hand I just had a generator do it for me.

Use your noggin.

[Spyder228]

Sephlock, on 20 May 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

$200k for Alpine?

Link to source, please .

I can't find the actual dev quote as I believe it was in an interview (maybe at GDC?) but it's referenced in numerous forum posts. Here is a forum post and here is a question in Reddit AMA

Edited by Spyder228, 20 May 2013 - 11:14 AM.

[RGoulet]

they overpaid a little... :/

[Sephlock]

Quick, everyone look up "Fiduciary Misconduct!"

[Zerberus]

Rabid Dutchman, on 18 May 2013 - 05:36 PM, said:

NO! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

The Repair mechanic in the game is the reason I stopped playing last year. When I found out it was gone I was back as fast as I could be. It severely punishes new players and anyone wanting to expand their play style and try new loadouts that may or may not work. I like the idea of being rewarded with parts or salvage in addition to C-Bills, but reinstating a system that punishes those who are new or those who had one "off" match is a bad idea.

Agreed 100%, and I quit during closed Beta togeter with literally a dozen of my friends for exactly this reason, specifically the Dev standpoint at the time that they were here to stay.

We all saw R+R as an obvious P2W mechanic, because it not only punished those that had a bad round, but also punished good players for playing well and doing things like spreading damage by torso twisting to live longer. It was also very easy to misuse for griefing.. Don`t like somebody and have 2 others in your team that hate him, too? Then you strip his mech of every shred or armor and every component piiece by piece just to give him massive R+R costs.

In addition, it promoted afk farming, suiciding, and dropping unrepaired to save money, which regularly ****** up the game for those that actually wanted to play. If half your team was onehitted or AFK, it was inevitable that you would get hammered with high R+R, too... Ever since R+R has been gone, the frequency of such occurences has gone down significantly IME (except for that week or 2 where they introduced the CTD "feature"), which has IMO raised the quality of the actual gameplay experience across the board.

I would not be totally against some form of it come CW, depending on implementation, but the old system was FUBARed and deserved to die.

[Rabid Dutchman]

Lee Ving, on 20 May 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

A loss on a one off bad match isn't that much punishment; worst case you'd end up out 20-40k cbills, and easily make that up on a win.

Let me break down my experience with the R+R system:

"First Match w/ Dragon I just bought: Dang! I got stomped. Oh, well next match I'll- I have to pay to fix the mech? I didn't have to do that with the trial mechs I used to earn the money to buy this one! Ok, well I have enough money to repair my engine, most of my systems, and some of my armor. I'll just play a little smarter next time.

Second Match: DAMMIT. Since I wasn't at full armor I got THRASHED. Ok, I have just enough to repair my armor to full and get my mech operational. I'll do that, this way my systems won't get destroyed again.

Third Match: SONOFABITCH! All of my money is gone on repair costs from the last match! I don't want to go back to trial mechs! I want to use my mech! **** this game."


Yes, new players earn C-Bills at a higher rate, but they use this money to buy a new mech (maybe with a little left over for a loadout adjustment). Then they have no money left to repair their mech when it inevitably gets thrashed. This means pissed off new players who may love the battletech universe but don't want to grind for cash just so they can use the ******* mech they already paid for (that's me, btw). This means players quitting the game because it is inaccessible and only really enjoyed by the niche hardcore fan market.

And for those of you making the argument that "managing your repair and refit costs is part of the fun!": If I wanted to play a game that benefited from a working knowledge of Excel I would play 'Super Spreadsheets: Online' (aka EVE).

[Sephlock]

@ ^ http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Dispossessed

[karoushi]

Rabid Dutchman, on 20 May 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

Let me break down my experience with the R+R system:

"First Match w/ Dragon I just bought: Dang! I got stomped. Oh, well next match I'll- I have to pay to fix the mech? I didn't have to do that with the trial mechs I used to earn the money to buy this one! Ok, well I have enough money to repair my engine, most of my systems, and some of my armor. I'll just play a little smarter next time.

Second Match: DAMMIT. Since I wasn't at full armor I got THRASHED. Ok, I have just enough to repair my armor to full and get my mech operational. I'll do that, this way my systems won't get destroyed again.

Third Match: SONOFABITCH! All of my money is gone on repair costs from the last match! I don't want to go back to trial mechs! I want to use my mech! **** this game."


Yes, new players earn C-Bills at a higher rate, but they use this money to buy a new mech (maybe with a little left over for a loadout adjustment). Then they have no money left to repair their mech when it inevitably gets thrashed. This means pissed off new players who may love the battletech universe but don't want to grind for cash just so they can use the ******* mech they already paid for (that's me, btw). This means players quitting the game because it is inaccessible and only really enjoyed by the niche hardcore fan market.

And for those of you making the argument that "managing your repair and refit costs is part of the fun!": If I wanted to play a game that benefited from a working knowledge of Excel I would play 'Super Spreadsheets: Online' (aka EVE).

That was the system you experienced, which was most likely broken beyond repair.

This does not dictate what a working design can do, a working design sees you gaining enough income every match to cover the repair costs, regardless of if you get stomped or not.

[Keifomofutu]

karoushi, on 20 May 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

That was the system you experienced, which was most likely broken beyond repair.

This does not dictate what a working design can do, a working design sees you gaining enough income every match to cover the repair costs, regardless of if you get stomped or not.

Getting off topic. Keep it to your thread about R&R.

[Rabid Dutchman]

karoushi, on 20 May 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

That was the system you experienced, which was most likely broken beyond repair.

This does not dictate what a working design can do, a working design sees you gaining enough income every match to cover the repair costs, regardless of if you get stomped or not.

So basically: if you lose you only get experience, and if you win you get experience plus whatever is left after repairs.
At that point the R+R system exists so players can press a button labeled 'repair'

[Sam Slade]

Hammertrial, on 14 May 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

1). Except PGI isn't the one handing out the licenses, FASA or Microsoft or whoever does.

2). Quality control is extremely difficult, you have to figure out the balance of both sides and search every nook and cranny of the maps for invisible walls or places where you can get stuck.

1). Provisional Outsource Agreement(sub-contracting) with simple, non-negotiable clauses. Just like websites like Elance, etc...

2). Have maps submitted as a 'wireframe' of sorts at pre-rendering stage. These could be put on the public test server for 'playability test' or something.

[Sam Slade]

Niko Snow, on 24 May 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

For this to be a consideration, it will have to occur well after release.

That's to be expected; still, not a bad thing to consider in the future.

[Night Rider]

Spyder228, on 20 May 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

I know the devs said it takes $200k to make a new map.

Quote or i call ********... there is no way they spend 200k on a single map.

Anyway if they are small company as many people say, making a map maker tool for community would only work to their benefit. I dont think it would be all that hard to make a simple ingame map editor.

Such editor could exist in an already implemented testing ground. There would be no need for 3rd party program, and all you could get out of the game would be in a single map file that could be sent to them.

So unless someone's ego might get hurt by seeing community delivering quality maps to them for free, there is really no reason not to add it.

[DrRip]

Hy there

I totally agree with OP.

As an old gamer I remember the days of quake 1,2,3. Especially Quake 3 which has had hundreds of mods and maps. This kept the game alive for ages. Bad Mods/Maps were filtered by the community, as the were never played. OK this is going to be a bit more complicated here compared to the old games, but I think the gain will overweight the effort.
From my point of view games which allowed for community mods and maps were played more and had a longer living community than those games wihtout these options.
I really like community driven content and would love to see the chance to create my own map in MWO.

But as it was stated in ATD multiple times I guess this won't happen.

just my 2 cents

Rip

Edit: s. AntiBots Post below ... Totally agree

Edited by DrRip, 27 May 2013 - 04:25 AM.

[AntiBot]

I can relate to the OP suggestions/idealism and i think handling any game like he suggests is what makes great games and will even generate great profit on the long term.

This is how games used to be (quake, cs)

However this model has been killed quite efficiently by the industry and i doubt we will see it back ever. Especially in "free"to play models.
I suspect publishers and developers do not want user made custom content nor a community that is something else but a consumer base.

This is probably the main reason a lot of games have been so bad past 5 years.(and they failed economically as a result of being bad)

There is still hope for mwo, but at the current state it is just a mech collectable game, the gameplay itself is like 1995 and the maps are even worse. (sorry mappers but its true).

Personally i dont care much about quality control just put a map in the pool and if it is bad or got exploits u will know very soon because the players will not only tell you, but will find bugs quicker than any dev can. Besides, the maps we have now are already bad and i want to bet a community can produce not only better quality maps but they will make plenty of them, they will do it faster and they will make them for free (!). I cant understand why this has been abandoned by the gaming industry, to me this seems very cost effective. (not only that, it is also the breeding ground for new mapping/modding talents, which the same industry is going to need 5 years from now)

Yes in the old days games didnt make any money, but they were superfun and made by players
Nowadays games make a lot of money but tend to feel hollow grindy and cheap BECAUSE players have no influence whatsoever (u cant run a server or make maps/gamemodes).


duh drrip u beat me to it

Edited by AntiBot, 27 May 2013 - 04:20 AM.

[DrRip]

@AntiBot, and everybody interested ;-)

But isn't the chance to use community created content in a free2play game not a chance for industry to "farm" money. I think it will be a win-win situation. The editor will control the content which will prohibit abuse. So still mechs and stuff will be on sale. So I don't see a drawback here.

The more I think about it I see the trend to incapacitate gamers, and somehow it is our fault. On Forums there is always whining giving a wrong impression about the abilities of gamers to cope with balance issues. Of course as a developer I would think a strong QC will help. But the gamers who are happy with the game and can cope with "on the fly" testing are quiet.

Thousands words no sense ;-). As Neverwinter (and STO) are trying to incorporate community content in their games I think some developers are utilizing the possibility of community made content. I enjoy this content in Neverwinter a lot, still there are some quite harsh restrictions, which I hope will be adressed. But this shows that f2p and community content can work together.

have a nice day

Rip

Edited by DrRip, 27 May 2013 - 04:35 AM.

[AntiBot]

i hope you are right DrRip but im not very optimistic

so far the most succesful games that have usermade content are not free to play
starcraft 2 being the prime example (i dont count teamfortress 2 because that is backed by valve/steam and it wasnt f2p at the start)