232 replies to this topic

[IraqiWalker]

Randalf Yorgen, on 26 April 2014 - 03:42 AM, said:

cs is one of the other posters.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

[Trauglodyte]

Not to say that the OP is wrong. But, remember that the marketing team is entirely different than the actual technical team(s). So, what the money guys decide to release is completely separate from everything else going on. Just saying.

[Appogee]

IraqiWalker, on 26 April 2014 - 03:53 AM, said:

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

I thought CS referred to Counter Strike.

[MischiefSC]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 26 April 2014 - 03:10 AM, said:

Had a few ideas of how to improve mentorship and I would love to hear more like these. There are very few constraints on ideas, except that of how much development or worktime is necessary to achieve them.

The only problem I can foresee with a Volunteer Mentor group is the worktime involved. Overseeing Volunteer Moderation is itself a full-time job on our forums, so the best solutions are always the ones that involve the least time out of us. (I'm not against the idea of hiring a full time Mentor Master, but we kinda could use a few other extra roles filled in before then,)

Already in the pipeline are the Tutorials and Invite systems. We're also going to be bringing back some forum rewards for players who produce awesome guides and help out in the New Player forums.

Tutorials and some sort of Invite system would be great. My concern though is that for all the issues that having new/vet players mixed in matches it at least gave the opportunity of new players and experienced players dropping together.

With the new update that's going to be harder and will leave newer players more isolated in matches.

How about direction to those Tutorials and the Invite system in the loading screens then? The problem with website tutorials is you're only catching a small number of people.

Even better - a link from the UI. Nothing bothersome but a link in the corner for 'Have questions/Need help building a mech?' that takes them to the website tutorial and the Newbie section on the forums.

Just trying to think about how to increase new players exposure to the content that's created to help them. Having people go find them and hold their hands is always great but admittedly it'd be time/resource intensive to then keep an eye on and support those volunteers. Forum and website content is great but some means of directing new players to it from the UI would be very helpful I would think.

[Roland]

I'm not going to go as far as to believe pgi is going to turn things around, but I must admit that Niko does at least seem to be communicating with folks which is a nice change of pace, so kudos to him.

[Trauglodyte]

And, admittedly, Paul has been doing a better job of making posts and such along with talking to the two bobbleheads over at NGNG. Whether we like the direction, at least they seem to be trying more. I can at least get on board that.

[Jin Ma]

agreed, a map doesn't need to be a labyrinth of routes or anything like that. it just needs to be a sandbox.

i really liked their earlier maps like forrest colony where i don't feel like im being funneled into a maze. This was never that type of game to begin with, some of these newer maps feel unrealtornament style and that is just unrealistic for a slow mech shooter game

[Turist0AT]

Roland, on 26 April 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

I'm not going to go as far as to believe pgi is going to turn things around, but I must admit that Niko does at least seem to be communicating with folks which is a nice change of pace, so kudos to him.

its rare. Dont get you panties wet just yet.

[Devil Fox]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 26 April 2014 - 03:25 AM, said:

If that actually happened...I would be so happy.

We know it won't happen... I've already heard talk that NGNG are working on tutorial video's... much like the last one (which really was very very basic... so much so it's faster talking people through this game then point them at tutorial videos). I believe if PGI say no to map creation submissions, content even further from their control won't be allowed... because let's face it, PGI have no internal marketing or media team to create this content (hence why NGNG is paid for tutorials and until recently Celestial fro the hero video's).

Turist0AT, on 26 April 2014 - 11:53 PM, said:

its rare. Dont get you panties wet just yet.

Agreed... haven't seen much of Niko at all, instead I'm seeing the more popular threads pre-forum changes slowly disappearing... as intended no doubt.

[CrashieJ]

IraqiWalker, on 26 April 2014 - 02:51 AM, said:

Thank you, finally something to start working with, instead of the internet tough guy act without any backing.

That's not bad, How many kilometers are the dimensions for it?

I also assume you plan on adding some actual terrain obstructions?

As far as building go, the current ones we have are out of scale a bit (as in an Atlas is three stories tall compared to some of them), Why not build a skeletal mesh from the ground up and then worry about skin?

If you import some of the assets, most importantly mechs, which are to scale with what their heights should be in most cases, you can then use them as a scale for how tall/big everything else should be. Seems convoluted, but I've already seen a lot of people pull up the assets and do wonders with them.

I'll find the thread for how to get those assets.

using the in-program measuring tool it comes out at a peachy 2.32 Kilometers, while not HUGE compared to other maps, I've been thinking of doing something more in terms of "verticality" rather than sheer walking distance.

I was thinking of creating a map in which there are seperate levels and altitudes (impromptu-conjoined buildings thanks to military bridges like in Terra-Therma) and CQC spaced out with longer ranged engagements, this creates the ability of hunkering down but keep moving.

Top levels of the city will mostly LRM food, Middle layers would most likely be Ballistics based while sublayers are more energy friendly, players will be able to freely move between city levels and if need be use all their weapons at will as part of tactics. Players will not only have to think about the advantages of their choice but also the choices of enemy players (players who might very well be Above you... or Below.)

Think back to that City in Hawken... but a bit more towering and a lot more tactical and thinking... like stealing a spot in a parking Garage.



---

as par with Building assets, I'm aware most of them are like a " 0.8:1 " ratio compared to mechs for some reason, what I will need to do is find a way to get the assets from the MWO folders and then convert it into a .OBJ file... from that I can get other dimensions such as mechs and work around that. Custom buildings will have to be made along with textures since resizing problems with textures are prevalent. I know that the Cryengine 3 sandbox is quite forgiving and friendly when it comes to importing user assets and textures.

again I probably wont be able to do major work until late-May/early June due to Finals and Projects coming up, but we'll see how it goes. Cry Engine Sandbox is not friendly to MWO's map format for some reason... so to test out the map functionality I will have to test out the map like this:



sorry for the giant wall of text.

[IraqiWalker]

gavilatius, on 27 April 2014 - 01:35 AM, said:

Gouda and Cheddar

I am liking that idea, I wonder how you're going to make a floor more ballistic friendly in comparison to the energy friendly floor?
Is it going to be the geometry? more open space to allow ballistic shots travel, while the energy floor is going to be more buildings and crowded lines of fire, where the instant damage ability is more important?

[CrashieJ]

IraqiWalker, on 27 April 2014 - 10:02 PM, said:

I am liking that idea, I wonder how you're going to make a floor more ballistic friendly in comparison to the energy friendly floor?
Is it going to be the geometry? more open space to allow ballistic shots travel, while the energy floor is going to be more buildings and crowded lines of fire, where the instant damage ability is more important?

I've been thinking both Geometry and Water levels, a sub parking garage can be flooded with water to help Energy weapons with maybe floating cars and other debris to block shots.

maybe I'll post some concept art later on, but doubtful, I usually just get into it

[IraqiWalker]

gavilatius, on 28 April 2014 - 05:26 PM, said:

I've been thinking both Geometry and Water levels, a sub parking garage can be flooded with water to help Energy weapons with maybe floating cars and other debris to block shots.

maybe I'll post some concept art later on, but doubtful, I usually just get into it

Sounds fantastic already. Remember though, beam weapons lose effectiveness when water is involved.

[CrashieJ]

IraqiWalker, on 28 April 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

Sounds fantastic already. Remember though, beam weapons lose effectiveness when water is involved.

If that is the case, what about Missile Weapons?

[Koniving]

gavilatius, on 28 April 2014 - 08:20 PM, said:

If that is the case, what about Missile Weapons?

View for yourself. Fired from under water they are fine. Going from above to underwater they simply explode on the surface providing no effect at all.


In general all weapons lose effectiveness. But what you could do is say have autocannons simply disabled when in underwater conditions or significantly reduced bullet velocity. Given MWO's system, it'd be easier to disable the ability to fire ACs under water.

Edited by Koniving, 28 April 2014 - 08:31 PM.

[Mazzyplz]

here's a quote from paul inouye



ehem i meant this as a joke and not to side with anyone on the last few pages
although development IS slow.. but the quality of getting stuck and all that would probably could not be enforced that well from user made maps, you have to spend a lot of time clipping the terrain so that stuff like a light mech can glide over it and not get stuck!! unless they make maps like a collaborative process where in the repository people build onto the map, i see why pgi doesn't just accept user submited maps.

i am a map maker myself for a bunch of fps although i never mapped for cryengine, making the actual landscape is not the hard part, you can sculpt it like with a brush... the hard part is making the detail like buildings and clipping all the terrain so users don't get stuck in the 100 million corners it has; the quality control in this case is what has to be enforced.

now if some people were to make maps and pgi would clip them themselves that could also save them some manpower to conceptualize these things to begin with - on the other hand!

so there are compelling arguments both ways, i really don't know

Edited by Mazzyplz, 28 April 2014 - 09:03 PM.

[Koniving]

Mazzyplz, on 28 April 2014 - 08:51 PM, said:

so there are compelling arguments both ways, i really don't know

The biggest issue is that the map creator could submit the map... but then as IGP monetizes the heck out of everything, the map's original creator could then turn around and expect royalties and when it's not given could sue for royalties or recognition.

[Onmyoudo]

Pretty sure PGI said they wouldn't accept user made maps because it required too much additional effort in testing/bug finding/fixing/balancing.

[IraqiWalker]

Onmyoudo, on 29 April 2014 - 12:30 AM, said:

Pretty sure PGI said they wouldn't accept user made maps because it required too much additional effort in testing/bug finding/fixing/balancing.

That too, not to mention that people could hide all kinds of weird exploits in their maps. PGI needs to go through that map inch by inch with a fine-tooth comb to make sure it's right.

[CrashieJ]

IraqiWalker, on 29 April 2014 - 01:09 AM, said:

That too, not to mention that people could hide all kinds of weird exploits in their maps. PGI needs to go through that map inch by inch with a fine-tooth comb to make sure it's right.

actually, I wouldn't mind the test server to use user created maps and the best ones being added into the game with PGI's blessing.

Koniving, on 28 April 2014 - 10:30 PM, said:

The biggest issue is that the map creator could submit the map... but then as IGP monetizes the heck out of everything, the map's original creator could then turn around and expect royalties and when it's not given could sue for royalties or recognition.

as for monetizing, contracts can be made in where the creator is not compensated in money but items such as cosmetics and premium currency. Valve did this for quite a while actually before redoing their contract.

the Cryengine contract for commercial games quite limits themselves regarding only monetary compensation when dealing with 3rd party (ie community content), PGI showed this with the community cockpit item contest a while back to 'test the waters' giving the winners MC.

the thing is, if PGI were more welcome to the community's artists and creators, this game would already be off to the races. but this map will probably sit on my hard drive for a very long time until then