232 replies to this topic

[Koniving]

gavilatius, on 29 April 2014 - 01:31 AM, said:

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

Submit it to the new MW:LL team? No profits, but you'll be able to see it be used.

[Bryan Ekman]

Lots of great responses. Here's our POV.

Maps are very important to everyone, especially PGI. We understand very well how much engagement is tied to a map, and we absolutely want to and will deliver more maps.

Many people have a general misconception that maps are easy to produce, they are not. A good map takes many revisions, often the first versions are tossed out entirely. They have to be balanced against the current and future metgame, and designed with purpose for multiple modes of play.

Maps are NOT cheap to develop, nor do they take a month or less. Each map takes between 2-4 months of development by a team of 3-7 individuals depending on the scope. This includes all the phases - Design, Prototype, Grey Block, Internal Testing, Art Pass, External Testing, Bug Fixing, and a Final QA pass.

We have two types of maps - ones that reuse assets (Crimson Straits), and ones that require new assets (HPG). The reuse maps are easier to develop. The new asset maps take much longer.

We currently have one reuse and one new asset map in the cooker. The new asset map is a Jungle style swamp map, with a lot of vertical play. The second is a base map designed to take advantage of future asymmetrical gameplay modes.

As for community made maps, this isn't like a standard PC game, where you buy a box, install the game, and can do what ever you like/want with some mod tools. The architecture of MWO is not like traditional PC games, where you can run your own servers, hosting your own content. All of the content in MWO has to go through our pipeline and be stored on the CDN and run by our dedicated servers in a secured closed environment.

It's an area we'd love to explore, but right now we have higher (community) priorities and we would like to deliver on those first.

[Trauglodyte]

Why so serious, Bryan?

[CeeKay Boques]

Appogee, on 25 April 2014 - 11:19 PM, said:

I am concerned there may be no playerbase left by the time PGI finally finally gets all the map elements done.

Don't worry, I'm breeding more. Stand by.

[Bryan Ekman]

Trauglodyte, on 29 April 2014 - 10:40 AM, said:

Why so serious, Bryan?

In other news, Creative Director seen running through the streets yelling it's PATCH DAY!

[arkani]

Bryan Ekman, on 29 April 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

...
Maps are NOT cheap to develop, nor do they take a month or less. Each map takes between 2-4 months of development by a team of 3-7 individuals depending on the scope. This includes all the phases - Design, Prototype, Grey Block, Internal Testing, Art Pass, External Testing, Bug Fixing, and a Final QA pass.
....

2 months for the "BORG" map, made out "gribbles" seriously??!!
You cant be serious, a "script kid" with a couple of free tools can make that map in less than a week. If it takes 2 months to make that map then MWO is in worse shape than i thought.

[Arkadash]

Thanks for the input, Bryan.

[CeeKay Boques]

I think you could give us your trashy, broken maps and happily we'd play them.

And then complain. Oh... the complaining. Ah well, QA it is then.

[BARBAR0SSA]

arkani, on 29 April 2014 - 10:46 AM, said:

2 months for the "BORG" map, made out "gribbles" seriously??!!
You cant be serious, a "script kid" with a couple of free tools can make that map in less than a week. If it takes 2 months to make that map then MWO is in worse shape than i thought.

Perfect, go toss one together in crytek and prove them wrong, should be fairly easy to port over something made on the same engine right?

Honestly people could probably draw up ideas of maps for them and see if they can replicate it as well, if the entire layout was done and it was a matter of copying it and creating new assets it might speed things up considerably.

[Roland]

Kudos to Bryan responding to the thread.

[Rumplestiltskin]

Jin Ma, on 25 April 2014 - 05:58 PM, said:

Im happy with the maps we have in game now.

would i like to see an archipelago map or jungle map? sure.

but to be honest i would much rather see a proper asteroid station map, instead of cybertron we got

Last night was in spectator mode & witnessed a Raven blasted off the edge of the Manifold. Poor lil guy smoking & tumbling through the void My son saw it too and was amused as well. Wish I had grabbed a couple screenshots, never seen this before.

[arkani]

Already am, but not for PGIIGP, sorry.
If it took me 2-4 months to make the BORG map i would be out of a job.

shad0w4life, on 29 April 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

Perfect, go toss one together in crytek and prove them wrong, should be fairly easy to port over something made on the same engine right?

Honestly people could probably draw up ideas of maps for them and see if they can replicate it as well, if the entire layout was done and it was a matter of copying it and creating new assets it might speed things up considerably.

Do you even look at the map? Look at the floor full of "bumps" steps and what not? U built that? by humans for humans?? what vehiclews can run on that surface? what about the rest?
None what so ever, because its made by "gribbles" go look up "gribbles".
Its a freaking shortcut to makle things look sci-fi... lazy ass work.

Edited by arkani, 29 April 2014 - 11:20 AM.

[Shlkt]

arkani, on 29 April 2014 - 10:46 AM, said:

2 months for the "BORG" map, made out "gribbles" seriously??!!
You cant be serious, a "script kid" with a couple of free tools can make that map in less than a week. If it takes 2 months to make that map then MWO is in worse shape than i thought.

I've played quite a few maps (not in MWO obviously) that were made "in less than a week", and I'd much rather stick with the full production cycle we've got here.

First of all, a "script kid" making maps is typically using free assets. He uses somebody else's textures, somebody else's shaders, somebody else's static models, etc... PGI must create all of those assets from scratch. We've got crashed dropships, rusting 'Mech wreckages, buildings and cars in various state of disrepair, bridges, and who knows what other techno-greebles on HPG.

The art assets alone represent weeks of work.

Secondly, if the "script kid" is releasing his map after just a week then he clearly hasn't performed thorough testing. We have 'Mechs of all shapes, sizes, and speeds - some with jumpjets, some without. Can all these 'Mechs navigate the map properly? Can an Atlas fit through the tunnels correctly? Are there places a Spider might get stuck while using his jump jets? And those are just navigational bugs, to say nothing of testing the flow of the map. It can take several playthroughs, using a variety of team compositions, just to get a feel for a map layout. Only then can you start to speculate on how the design might be exploited or unfair to one particular team.

Depending on preliminary testing results, you might have to scrap the entire map layout. A "script kid" typically does not perform revisions (and it shows). For him, rough draft = final copy.

Thirdly, the "script kid" often doesn't concern himself with user performance issues: are there area of the map that are too graphically detailed for the players running w/ minimum system requirements? Is there a polygon/complexity budget of some kind? These questions potentially represent another tedious round of testing; you have to check visibility and graphical complexity from a huge variety of vantage points.

Finally, the "script kid" often demonstrates inattention to minutiae. Misaligned textures, obstructions which unexpectedly disrupt movement, poor visual transitions between disparate terrain, etc... Ambient sounds! Ambient visual effects, like the distant anti-air guns on River City... These little details are what give the map atmosphere and a since of professionalism.

Edited by Shlkt, 29 April 2014 - 11:20 AM.

[arkani]

Dude, i agree say, all valid points but, honestly, tell me that the map has the "sense" of profesionalism you talk about ?!

Shlkt, on 29 April 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

First of all, a "script kid" making maps is typically using free assets. He uses somebody else's textures, somebody else's shaders, somebody else's static models, etc... PGI must create all of those assets from scratch. We've got crashed dropships, rusting 'Mech wreckages, buildings and cars in various state of disrepair, bridges, and who knows what other techno-greebles on HPG.
The art assets alone represent weeks of work.

True, art assets alone represent weeks of work,m but were are they on that map?
The "boxed houses" you find oustide the walls of the map you can find the same assets on "Forest". Why are they there ?
Leftovers from construction works? Slums?

The walls themselves are nothing more than a huge polygon with "gribbles" on its faces. why are they so thick? are they livable quarters inside? because if they are., thats a lot of people living there on a moon? Why are they there ? does the map give evidence of this ?

Why is there a huge enough entrance for mechs to get below the main dish? why?
Why is there huge ass pilar in that area each color coded? Are we suppose to blow them because i tried and it did nothing.

Why are they so many raised landing platforms? what the hell lands there ? do they work open and close? no they dont they just are there.

Shlkt, on 29 April 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

Secondly, if the "script kid" is releasing his map after just a week then he clearly hasn't performed thorough testing. We have 'Mechs of all shapes, sizes, and speeds - some with jumpjets, some without. Can all these 'Mechs navigate the map properly? Can an Atlas fit through the tunnels correctly? Are there places a Spider might get stuck while using his jump jets? And those are just navigational bugs, to say nothing of testing the flow of the map. It can take several playthroughs, using a variety of team compositions, just to get a feel for a map layout. Only then can you start to speculate on how the design might be exploited or unfair to one particular team.

As for navigation on the map, why are there so many ramps whats the reason? is there a reason?
No, they jsut need ramps so mechs can go to the other levels and say they made a map of "levels of play". Those ramps have no other reason to exist.

Shlkt, on 29 April 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

Depending on preliminary testing results, you might have to scrap the entire map layout. A "script kid" typically does not perform revisions (and it shows). For him, rough draft = final copy.
Thirdly, the "script kid" often doesn't concern himself with user performance issues: are there area of the map that are too graphically detailed for the players running w/ minimum system requirements? Is there a polygon/complexity budget of some kind? These questions potentially represent another tedious round of testing; you have to check visibility and graphical complexity from a huge variety of vantage points.
Finally, the "script kid" often demonstrates inattention to minutiae. Misaligned textures, obstructions which unexpectedly disrupt movement, poor visual transitions between disparate terrain, etc... Ambient sounds! Ambient visual effects, like the distant anti-air guns on River City... These little details are what give the map atmosphere and a since of professionalism.

That map as very little compared to others yet, do you see an increase of performance, no you dont.
Does the fact that it is a moon base affect your heat dissipation? NO
Does it affect your jump distance? NO
The only thing made diferent is the sound. Kudos for the sound engineer.
Why are there these weird pylons scatered thru the map that stop your mech? whats there purpose ? let me guess they disrupt movement by stopping your mech.
Anti-air guns on River City, yea again Kudos for the sound engineer.

Seriuously take a look at the map, a real good look, and tell me it feels like a moon base built by humans for humans?
Because for me it feels like a map that a script kid would make using "gribbles" textures from any texture site a few assets and said it looks "kinda cool".

Edited by arkani, 29 April 2014 - 12:02 PM.

[Dawnstealer]

AUSwarrior24, on 25 April 2014 - 04:29 PM, said:

With all due respect, do you guys really know that much about game development?

To build new maps, developers and designers have to dedicate a large amount of time towards designing the maps, which is important for a relatively tactical game, and creating it, which is no easy feat due to the amount of little (unnecessary imo) details on each.

'Expanding the maps' indeed. What they need to spend time on is the damn core features of the game, like the Clans, and something other than this god forsaken deathmatch gameplay.

As someone who's been making maps since the Doom (original) days, I'd say making maps is less difficult than you think. Yes, making something that's amazing takes a little time, but I could squat over a bowl and create River City in a day.

[CrashieJ]

Bryan Ekman, on 29 April 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

Lots of great responses. Here's our POV.

Maps are very important to everyone, especially PGI. We understand very well how much engagement is tied to a map, and we absolutely want to and will deliver more maps.

Many people have a general misconception that maps are easy to produce, they are not. A good map takes many revisions, often the first versions are tossed out entirely. They have to be balanced against the current and future metgame, and designed with purpose for multiple modes of play.

Maps are NOT cheap to develop, nor do they take a month or less. Each map takes between 2-4 months of development by a team of 3-7 individuals depending on the scope. This includes all the phases - Design, Prototype, Grey Block, Internal Testing, Art Pass, External Testing, Bug Fixing, and a Final QA pass.

We have two types of maps - ones that reuse assets (Crimson Straits), and ones that require new assets (HPG). The reuse maps are easier to develop. The new asset maps take much longer.

We currently have one reuse and one new asset map in the cooker. The new asset map is a Jungle style swamp map, with a lot of vertical play. The second is a base map designed to take advantage of future asymmetrical gameplay modes.

As for community made maps, this isn't like a standard PC game, where you buy a box, install the game, and can do what ever you like/want with some mod tools. The architecture of MWO is not like traditional PC games, where you can run your own servers, hosting your own content. All of the content in MWO has to go through our pipeline and be stored on the CDN and run by our dedicated servers in a secured closed environment.

It's an area we'd love to explore, but right now we have higher (community) priorities and we would like to deliver on those first.

hey Bryan, how long does it normally take to create a reusable object asset like the ones we see in River city?

What I am conceptualizing is maybe taking a building from the game's asset files and porting it over to something like 3DS max, then building scratch assets around those specifications, before reverting them to a Cryengine friendly format to be initialized into the map. What I am speculating is that I should be able to create workable objects that would fit the aesthetics in the game in less time since the dimensions are already worked out.

I understand maps go through many revisions, heck I know I'm going to do at least 50 more before I even place the first building.

I know PGI is a little bit miffed due to recent events pushing buttons, but I will tell you this right now... with a community this big, with people who WANT, outright WANT to help out, you'd have no trouble finding people who are willing to give you things AND do a bit of QA on the side.

Maybe I can use you guys for a project with my University.

Edited by gavilatius, 29 April 2014 - 02:58 PM.

[CtrlAltWheee]

Arkani is speaking abrasively, but his points are well taken.

With love to the PGI team, the MWO maps need help.

Credit where it's due: basically everything on Arkani's page 5 comment is accurate (it's too long to quote). Add in that Tourmailine Desert is a really fun map. It plays well. It plays well as a light, medium, heavy, assault. It's alien. It is successful.

The not so good: others have pointed out that MWO maps do not feel "lived in." The mechwarrior 5 trailer from a few years back is successful in creating a sense of scale and an 'alive' environment. None of MWO's maps create that sense of scale.

One suggestion is contribute to the illusion of scale as soon as we enter the mechlab. Insert mechanics walking around, welding, etc. That brings life.

[Corvus Antaka]

Dawnstealer, on 29 April 2014 - 12:05 PM, said:

As someone who's been making maps since the Doom (original) days, I'd say making maps is less difficult than you think. Yes, making something that's amazing takes a little time, but I could squat over a bowl and create River City in a day.

Exactly right. Bryans explanation is the explanation of a corporation - bloated, inefficient, and unbelievable.

I don't think you could make rivercity in a day, but I'm 100% sure that plenty of people out there could easily as a 1 man team make any of the MWO maps in 2-4 weeks + 4 weeks of community testing time. I know PLENTY of 5 man teams that could churn out a map a month for 50,000 dollars each and do much better maps than what PGI is making for 250,000 per map.

Those of us that have been modding and map making for 20 years know bullshit when we see it and no longer have patience for this idiotic type of rhetoric.

[Rebas Kradd]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 30 April 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

Exactly right. Bryans explanation is the explanation of a corporation - bloated, inefficient, and unbelievable.

I don't think you could make rivercity in a day, but I'm 100% sure that plenty of people out there could easily as a 1 man team make any of the MWO maps in 2-4 weeks + 4 weeks of community testing time. I know PLENTY of 5 man teams that could churn out a map a month for 50,000 dollars each and do much better maps than what PGI is making for 250,000 per map.

Those of us that have been modding and map making for 20 years know bullshit when we see it and no longer have patience for this idiotic type of rhetoric.

I've been mapmaking for quite a while and I suspect that the standards of a professional corporation are just a little higher than those of some random guy at his computer with no investor expectations held over him and no user performance ranges required.

The flipside of the "I'm part of the 99% and RAH RAH corporations are evil" attitude is that corporations usually have deliberate checks and procedures in place to prevent problems. We call it bureaucracy, and sometimes you're right, but sometimes you're just impatient. Your mind naturally jumps to the Terra Therma bugs at this point...whatever. I never said it'd be perfect. I said it could be a lot worse. I would not be opening my wallet to a team of 7 that churned out a map every month. I wouldn't feel confident in their testing procedures.

Oh, but I must be lying about my mapmaking experience since I don't agree with you, right?

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 30 April 2014 - 02:05 PM.

[Featherwood]

One thing really bothers me since CBT and early descriptions of CW (search for 2011 Bryan/Russ posts):
it is was expected that CW will introduce planetary assaults and ability to hold planet for a faction, I still cannot imagine or force myself to believe that entire planetary assault will be represented by single map of <roughly> 2-3 square kilometers. Entire planet! It would be disappointingly stupid. Yes, map generator for a sessional shooter is very complicated task which requires competence PGI simply does not poses, but there should be more simple solutions which could make players experience more variative. It would be absolutely cool to start every match on newly generated map, but it would be no less cool to start every match on some part of huge map representing a planet (instead of dropping into small area you've seen many times before). That I would call a tactical shooter then.

Edit: forgot to mention weather. I can keep dreaming still...

Edited by Featherwood, 30 April 2014 - 02:15 PM.