43 replies to this topic

[Burakumin1979]

Hello everyone,

Long time BT fan and avid MWO player here. I also happen to be a Senior Systems/Software Engineer here in the Washington D.C. area.

First off, as someone who understands the SDLC, I want to say thank you to the developers for their level of content and debugging during this open beta period.

Now, I wanted to suggest a few ideas for your final release that are low-cost, add a large amount of variety to the game, and will amp up the community. When you are releasing a game like this, you want people excited and there is no better way than to get players involved. I promise you, the age group that this game appeals to has a large amount of very talented, technically savvy, individuals who would be happy to donate some development time to your effort...for FREE.

I know what you're thinking, we can't just have anybody poking around in our code and thats understandable, but what you can do is release map-making tools to the community. With the correct amount of upfront guidance and strong QC of the submissions you receive, you could easily end up with 10-100 usable maps that took you very little development time and only marginal implementation effort.

You could reward people who's maps are selected with 100,000 MC, a special variant of a mech, a mention on the map load screen "Industrial Park (submitted by Mahalito)"

If that's not appealing, you have other options with your current maps....fragment them. Cut the maps into 6-10 sections that can be rearranged for each match. This will add variety and still be within the already tested capabilities of your engine. It still has the same types of collisions and intersections, they are just rendered in different places.

Another idea. To spice up Assault matches...randomly remove one of the bases for each match. This puts one team on assault and one team on defense and I think forces the type of competetion the spirit of assault maps are meant to have.

And a shameless plug for something I want: Bring back repair costs and salvage...BUT offset it by increasing salvage (weapons, armor, internal structure, ammo), rarely allowing destroyed mechs and engines to be salvaged. This would allow people a way to make the money (selling the salvage) or store items to replace destroyed pieces. For engine repairs, you could significantly differemtiate between the cost to replace an engine destroyed due to location destruction, one destroyed due to critical hits, and one destroyed due to overheating. No salvage for future 1v1 matches by the way..gotta keep people from abusing it.

As for overheating....PENALTIES!!! In a resource management game, make people manage that resource. Longer shutdown times, death of pilot at 4 overheats (great possibility of salvage for people on the other team!), or other large penalties for going over. I see people continually calling for heat sinks to NOT increase heat cap but increase dissapation. That's a great way to allow continual fire and fun gameplay but eliminate ridiculous alpha strikes that don't damage the mech. In TT a 6 ERPPC Stalker would suffer huge risk of damage/pilot injury after just 1 alpha.

Anyway, thanks for your time and I look forward to playing this game until you take the servers down.

[Hammertrial]

There are many issues with a community created map process, which they have discussed before. Legal issues, compensation, quality control, all of which PGI now has to determine and hire staff for.

Or they could not bother with the hassle and not do it.

[Burakumin1979]

Legal issues are very easily handled with Licensing Agreements and Waivers. Compensation is in-game only and can be stated in the agreement for submitting work. It is actually a MUCH MUCH simpler legal issue than you imply. Now quality control is something they would have to do, but also not very difficult or very time consuming for something like a map.

Where you see hassle, I see an opportunity to involve the gaming community.

[Hammertrial]

Burakumin1979, on 14 May 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

Legal issues are very easily handled with Licensing Agreements and Waivers. Compensation is in-game only and can be stated in the agreement for submitting work. It is actually a MUCH MUCH simpler legal issue than you imply. Now quality control is something they would have to do, but also not very difficult or very time consuming for something like a map.

Where you see hassle, I see an opportunity to involve the gaming community.

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

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. PGI can spend a month testing the new maps (they say they are about 1 month ahead of us in terms of patches), and there are still bugged places they need players to test.

It'll be like Neverwinters foundry system. Sure you'll find a gem in the swaths of absolute crap, but is it really worth the effort?

[karoushi]

One Hundred Thousand MC? Don't you mean the normal credits and not MC? That is a lot of money.

Like the majority of your ideas though, honestly did a brief skim through but overall seems decent.

Edited by karoushi, 14 May 2013 - 03:14 PM.

[Burakumin1979]

Actually, 100,000 MC is what, roughly $400 to each of the selected map submitters...thats not much.

To address Hammer's concerns. These are maps, not mech images, so there is no licensing required from FASA or Microsoft required as it doesn't allow any use of patented images. Its a map development kit (place this type of tile here, tree here, elevate this ground, add building here, etc.). The collisions for each type of object are done. And as far as QCing a map...they have thousands of willing QC'ers right here...and even after launch. They announce they are adding a new player submitted map to the rotation, please submit any issues or comments you find. I promise you after one-two nights of playing, they will have tons of geometry problems identified if they exist.

As far as balance...mechs and weapons need to be balanced. Maps...not at all. Especially not for Attack/Defense maps. Heck, Forest Colony heavily favors the non crane side now as it is (tons of good cover points and completely concealed access to the tunnel. Yeah not interested in balanced maps, as assumptions that the battelfield is symmetrical break quickly (Caustic Valley).

Lower and Upper River City..not balanced. Alpine Peaks, one base gets a perch, the other a long trudge up exposed valleys. Balance in maps is created by tactics, not terrain magically morphing to be equal.

Edited by Burakumin1979, 14 May 2013 - 04:26 PM.

[karoushi]

Burakumin1979, on 14 May 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

Actually, 100,000 MC is what, roughly $400 to each of the selected map submitters...thats not much.

To address Hammer's concerns. These are maps, not mech images, so there is no licensing required from FASA or Microsoft required as it doesn't allow any use of patented images. Its a map development kit (place this type of tile here, tree here, elevate this ground, add building here, etc.). The collisions for each type of object are done. And as far as QCing a map...they have thousands of willing QC'ers right here...and even after launch. They announce they are adding a new player submitted map to the rotation, please submit any issues or comments you find. I promise you after one-two nights of playing, they will have tons of geometry problems identified if they exist.

As far as balance...mechs and weapons need to be balanced. Maps...not at all. Especially not for Attack/Defense maps. Heck, Forest Colony heavily favors the non crane side now as it is (tons of good cover points and completely concealed access to the tunnel. Yeah not interested in balanced maps, as assumptions that the battelfield is symmetrical break quickly (Caustic Valley).

Lower and Upper River City..not balanced. Alpine Peaks, one base gets a perch, the other a long trudge up exposed valleys. Balance in maps is created by tactics, not terrain magically morphing to be equal.

I hope you didn't go to any kind of design school and are now saying that balance in maps isn't needed.
Also, are you responsible for the unbalanced maps of BattleField 3?

Please stop telling people this, it is falsehood at best.


An unbalanced map results in unbalanced play and the maps don't need to be perfectly symmetrical to accomplish this, they just need equal opportunities ~ so to say. One safe zone for each team (base), two funnel spots for each team (intense fighting spots) and some flanking positions and throw in some other random stuff (hills, rivers, cities, forests, etc) for detail.

It isn't that hard but intentionally making unbalanced maps or advocating that balance isn't needed is not going to help any game, ever.

[Edson Drake]

I like his suggestions seem very down to earth personally(except 100.000 MC is crazy).

I guess the problem with licensing lies in that the map would be in an specific planet. And that planet IS protected by FASA/Microsoft/whatever.

[Delas Ting Usee]

karoushi, on 14 May 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

I hope you didn't go to any kind of design school and are now saying that balance in maps isn't needed. Also, are you responsible for the unbalanced maps of BattleField 3? Please stop telling people this, it is falsehood at best. An unbalanced map results in unbalanced play and the maps don't need to be perfectly symmetrical to accomplish this, they just need equal opportunities ~ so to say. One safe zone for each team (base), two funnel spots for each team (intense fighting spots) and some flanking positions and throw in some other random stuff (hills, rivers, cities, forests, etc) for detail. It isn't that hard but intentionally making unbalanced maps or advocating that balance isn't needed is not going to help any game, ever.

I'm not one to look the gift horse in the mouth...and I'm all for the community creating the maps.
Unbalance maps will be thrown out after a trial peroid I'm assuming and the community will vote and decide in the end when one is able to select map instead of it being randomly selected.

I also kinda agree with OP on the maps we have ALREADY being unbalance - depending on which side you start on - as a sniper, you already have a slight advantage.

[Burakumin1979]

karoushi, on 14 May 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

I hope you didn't go to any kind of design school and are now saying that balance in maps isn't needed.
Also, are you responsible for the unbalanced maps of BattleField 3?

Please stop telling people this, it is falsehood at best.


An unbalanced map results in unbalanced play and the maps don't need to be perfectly symmetrical to accomplish this, they just need equal opportunities ~ so to say. One safe zone for each team (base), two funnel spots for each team (intense fighting spots) and some flanking positions and throw in some other random stuff (hills, rivers, cities, forests, etc) for detail.

It isn't that hard but intentionally making unbalanced maps or advocating that balance isn't needed is not going to help any game, ever.

Seems overly hostile, but easy enough to address. Maps should not ever be "balanced" as that happens nowhere in combat...anywhere...ever. There will always be tactical advantages to one side or the other. A base defending group is going to have an advantage over a team having to advance over open terrain..that is a purposely unbalanced map. People build military structures with the INTENTION of creating unbalanced battle conditions. If you're focused on some kind of odd map balance that treats both teams the same...it doesn't and should not exist.

Attempting to overly balance maps detracts from true tactical gameplay. I've never played Battlefield 3 but if it gave a huge advantage to say..the team defending native land in structures they are familiar with...kinda makes sense.

I'm a systems/software engineer, so no design school, but I have participated in real world combat in both urban, flat plain rural, and mountainous settings and every time, somebody had a huge tactical advantage due to the terrain. Map balance is a myth and makes for very predictable and very boring gameplay.

This comment in particular is loathsome:

"One safe zone for each team (base), two funnel spots for each team (intense fighting spots) and some flanking positions and throw in some other random stuff (hills, rivers, cities, forests, etc) for detail."

Edited by Burakumin1979, 14 May 2013 - 09:59 PM.

[Lee Ving]

Edson Drake, on 14 May 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

I like his suggestions seem very down to earth personally(except 100.000 MC is crazy).

I guess the problem with licensing lies in that the map would be in an specific planet. And that planet IS protected by FASA/Microsoft/whatever.

Your signature made me nostaglia, I used to run almost that exact hardware.

Nothing in MW:O has mentioned this is Wolcott or this is Twycross - its just Caustic or Forest Colony, so I'd think that is a non-issue. I'm sure they're figuring out a way to deal with that issue in Community Warfare.

[Zerberus]

Burakumin1979, on 14 May 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

Legal issues are very easily handled with Licensing Agreements and Waivers.

Where you see "easily handled", others incl the Devs see "we went through hell and back numerous times over as many years just to get this far"

Quote

Compensation is in-game only and can be stated in the agreement for submitting work.

With Counterstrike being purchased by Valve as a notable exception, almost no commnunity generated content has ever been rewarded much less compensated in the history of video games, least of all by the devs. Which publisher would be so stupid as to start doing this on a large scale now?

Quote

It is actually a MUCH MUCH simpler legal issue than you imply.

Unfortunately, it is also significantly more complex than you do.

The truth lies in the middle, and the middle is where PGI was standing when they gave a firm and (presumably final) "NO" to user generated content, including but not limited to mechs, maps, and mods.

Quote

Where you see hassle, I see an opportunity to involve the gaming community.

It is not us you must coinvince, it is the developers and publishers. While I do not see why you should succeed where literally thousands before you have failed miserably (including myself, I offered to provide or compose a professional soundtrack essentially for free / IG compensation). But I see no reason to keep you from trying. The proper channels for this would be emailing support@mwomercs.com, spamming Bryan Ekman`s twitter until he blocks you, and asking in the next round of Ask the Devs.

Good Luck.

Burakumin1979, on 14 May 2013 - 09:08 PM, said:

Overall map design post.....

In essence I agree 100%.

However, one must also realize that this IS a game, and not real combat, nor a true simulation of such. As such a middle ground between realism and "tennis court" must be found so as to keep the game interesting but not make it too simle or tactically devoid of substance.

A certain degree of imbalance is essential and, heck, unavoidable on a map that`s not entirely symmetrical. That is a good thing.

But it can go to far, a good example would be cs_Assault, which 15 years later is still the most one sided map in the game (T has a massive tactical advantage to the point of almost being guaranteed a win, equal skill assumed), and was actually banned as a CW choice in many leagues.

classic de_dust (pre CZ /Source /GO) on the other hand is a decent example of "balanced imbalance": Ct can quickly cover the tunnel, side exits, and large wooden door leading to bombsite b, but can almost never stop a team of rushers from taking B before they are in position.

To this day there are dust only servers, and to this day most servers do not have assault in the rotation. I think that says volumes about balance in map design vs. game longevity

Edited by Zerberus, 15 May 2013 - 08:59 AM.

[Burakumin1979]

Thanks Zerberus. Good reply and understood. Thanks for being cordial.

[Edson Drake]

Quote

Your signature made me nostaglia, I used to run almost that exact hardware.

I still have that up and running, when I want to play some MW2 Mercs.

[Adrienne Vorton]

Burakumin1979, on 14 May 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

Now quality control is something they would have to do, but also not very difficult or very time consuming for something like a map.

if you see how long it takes to debug and balance the maps they created on their own, iguess that would mean even more time and work for maps someone else made... plus the fact that they would have to sort out a few outstanding maps from a lot of user creations... they would basically have at least the same work/ time to invest as they have now... unless we, the players want to play on untested maps, no matter how good or bad they are... i am not very sure if this whole user content thing would really work out for a game like this...

[Keifomofutu]

Add player created maps to an optional rotation. Players get to decide if they want to be part of those by checking a box. Once certain popular player created maps have been around for a long time and have been bugtested and bugfixed by the players PGI can adopt it into the regular rotation.

[ExplodedZombie]

Edson Drake, on 14 May 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

I like his suggestions seem very down to earth personally(except 100.000 MC is crazy).

I guess the problem with licensing lies in that the map would be in an specific planet. And that planet IS protected by FASA/Microsoft/whatever.

I don't recall seeing River City's planet being called out. There is absolutely no licensing issue I can think of that would actually apply to people creating maps. Once a map is submitted, it becomes property of PGI (publisher, etc) and they can "reuse" it however they want. Of course, there would have to be approvals from higher up, unless they gained an unrestrictive license (doubtful).

Close to non-existent legal issues aside, I cringe to think of wading through tons of submissions. I'm a developer, myself, and we have user submission contests on our forums every now and then. They have turned out some great stuff but 99% of it is awful.

[Rabid Dutchman]

Burakumin1979, on 14 May 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

And a shameless plug for something I want: Bring back repair costs and salvage...

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.

[Burakumin1979]

Rabid Dutchman,

New players get extra cbills for precisely that reason.

If the salvage rewards more often than not offset the repair penalty, then there is no harm as it averages out.

[Lee Ving]

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

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.

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.

It also punished boating the most expensive equipment possible and gave incentive not to Endo-DHS-PPC everything.