5 replies to this topic

[WM Jeri]

Concept Process To Leverage Capital PGI Has Already Spent On Existing Maps

Hello,

I rarely post but the recent VLog discussion got me thinking about maps and how possibly PGI can triangulate its efforts to maximize its ROI on already existing maps and deliver a better player experience at the same time.

While I am not a developer I am a concept design leader for our business applications where I work and I always try to maximize existing functionality and leverage it in a way that we can spin it off and have a scalable solution that can grow around our employee and customer needs.

I think its worth a discussion to see if its possible for PGI to speed up its deployment rate of maps while capitalizing on existing map toolsets and at the same time introduce more map variability into the game for players while at the same time establish a means to provide a continuity of experience in community warfare on planetary style conquest battles...let me explain some key assumptions.

• I do believe that PGI has had to create various toolsets around maps and once that map is complete they have a diminishing return in terms of use because when they make a new map they create new artistic toolsets.
  
• Map size is limited to a degree to control the length of battles, overly huge maps would create issues in this area.

Now let me explain how I think PGI can use work already done to control cost, deliver a better gaming experience and overall deploy assets quicker.

• First, start building out existing maps to a larger size, the tool sets already exist for those maps the terrain is all that needs to be different.
  
• Keep your boundary size the same even when making the maps bigger but randomize where the boundary falls on the map for public drops and even possibly CW battles.

• My first assumption is you end up having a shorter design time overall but yet the players never really know what terrain is going to be in the map, to be sure there will be some familiarity but just enough variability to introduce another level of tactical consideration yet still control map size to limit overall match time. You also reinforce a design silo of role warfare as scouting becomes much more important.

• My second point is that using this model in CW you could pick the map based on planet topography of area fighting and keep a better feeling of continuity on a planetary campaign and literally march a unit forward or backward on terrain won or lost. It creates a very natural progression for the player of hey I just won this real estate and advanced across the map or moved back as they lost terrain. By moving the fighting boundaries across the map you now have a very scalable solution.

The developers could also use this model to create transition maps that allow for transitioning between the terrain of existing maps that allow them to join exiting map styles etc. Just another random thought in my head but it does allow for a more linear thought and design process of moving from say a desert, to a city, to a forest and then colder arctic style area for example.

I won’t get into much more detail but think this process is more about just making more maps, but rather maximizing the tools already developed for existing maps and finding a way to introduce them into the game design that provides additional value for both PGI and the consumer.

Many of the maps are awesome...and as a player I have often wondered what is past the boundries and over the next hill.

Edited by WM Jeri, 14 July 2014 - 11:40 AM.

[Lilferret]

Excellent idea and one I had hoped would be introduced. Several maps lend themselves to expansion such as canyon network (there is a city out there boys), My concern is that PGI will simply smack on environment effects and call it a new map.
River city night for example. Seems like they would just release the day and night versions of maps at the same time and call it a two fer.

I understand why PGI might be reluctant to have community maps created but they could take a page from some other recent games that are in beta and had an amazingly successful kickstarter, and have competitions. Have quarterly map contests allowing the community to pick which map they would like added to the rotation. This would give the community some sense of inclusion as well as provide free design work for the PGI team. Sure they will have to polish up whatever is submitted but the heavy lifting would be done.

Give the winning team some MC or premium time as well as credited work and everyone is happy.

[Shepherd]

It's an interesting idea, but I doubt that a fully random assignment of the borders of the map for a particular drop would pan out too well. Multiplayer maps are painstakingly created in order to ensure that there are multiple viable attack paths, that one side is not inherently superior, etc. Take Forest Colony - it would be a whole different map if the borders randomly sliced off the caves, and in my opinion it would be a worse map for the change.

But I think I've caught the spirit of your idea - reuse the art assets they've created into a collection of similarly themed maps - i.e. Crimson Straight's art could be used in half a dozen new maps representing pristine cities - likewise HPG could be used to represent any number of moonbases, plain old moonscapes and what have you. And it wouldn't be too difficult to "stitch" them together into a campaign tug-o-war map-chain. That way each individual map can be painstakingly laid out to ensure that it's more or less even, that there are multiple useful attack paths and so forth, but you still get to reuse the art assets.

I think it's a good concept

[Ryoken]

Jeez... if you use your BS-Bingo words please introduce them first time instead of using the abrevation only.

Return on Investment (ROI) after that go on with the abrevation...

Edited by Ryoken, 15 July 2014 - 04:01 PM.

[WM CyberWolf]

Its a great idea, seems like it would be something that could be done quickly with max benefit to the players

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ironically MW4 did this on a few assets (Big City = Inner City + Central Park + Some extra stuff).
It is a great idea, but unfortunately PGI seems to strongly favor landmark areas of engagement in central part of the maps and leaving borders somewhat random might mess with their flawed idea of what good maps are.