188 replies to this topic

[Kyle Wright]

Onmyoudo, on 07 August 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

Could Niko explain (or has he already?) why literally everything else must stop for maps to be made? How does that work? Surely they could put out some maps using already created textures/meshes etc that would take less time while they work on new assets for the other maps? For example, another city map with a different layout. Or another map like Alpine, but less rubbish...



Uh, PGI is potentially rolling in dough. I dunno about their expenditure but their income from people buying MC and clans and every hero ever released is pretty high from the amount of them you see in game and on the forums.

They wouldnt have to even go to the extent of making cities, just give us maps with lots of terrain spreadout. Nothing has to be this 1 off map crap. Make 4-5 desert maps that actually look like desert you would find in a real world ( sorry but its scientifically impossible to get crystals that big on Tourmaline Desert without something being under intense heat and pressure, not to mention in a liquid solution to precipitate the right minerals for several billion years.) 4-5 Maps call that Tourmaline desert. Then 4-5 Maps based off terrain feature found On Alpine (just add more trees), but change up hills, etc. Look at the Marsh Map for MW:LL it hos lots of trees for cover, fog just like a bog/marsh, Rolling hills spread out, as well as simple buildings that look very much like what a military base would have NOT APARTMENT COMPLEXES

Then once you want to get fancy and you have a bunch of simple maps that have very sparse buildings and are more so just terrain, then you can start getting fancy and adding fluffy ALL CITY maps and what not. What makes MW:LL maps so nice is they are simple for the most part but have such wide space and terrain features that there are 10 of hundreds of different tactical possibilities, compared to our current maps where I feel the design team has intentionally forced us to fight where they see fit.

Edited by Kyle Wright, 07 August 2014 - 02:31 PM.

[Kyle Wright]

Do me a favor everyone, spread the word around to your friends and show them any of the videos i posted and simply ask them what they would prefer? What we currently have with all the statues and boulders that stomp mechs in their tracks, ghost walls, and simply places that are unrealistic for BT Universe to fight in? ( If I recall, point of mechs was to fight away from cities like the knights of old in order to protect the population?) Or would they rather have More spread out terrain that isnt over exaggerated and realistic that you could picture your self actually fighting in a place?

[StevieRayVaughan]

Let them fix invisible walls on maps we already have, then make new ones.

[Iron Frost]

Kyle Wright, on 06 August 2014 - 11:21 PM, said:

Now I found this video take from inside MW: LL. How is it they were able to get these really well done maps and from what I hear they had the same if not more then we do currently using the same game engine? There is really nothing Fancy PGI, You dont have to get super elaborate with map designs. Not all battles have to fight within a city or around one. Give us non-populated terrain with random hills, mountains, sunken valleys, bodies of water, and forest. Throw in weather for effects. These super elaborate terrain features you come up with dont need to be. As a geologist canyon network would never be how it is in real life unless it was the remnant of river mouth dumping into a ancient ocean. And even then you would find hundreds of meters of sediments deposited in alluvial fans.







Then look at this map in this training match... Look how big it is. Notice how people cant be spotted from super far away... These guys are talking in Russian and all I understood was blah blah Fafnir ( think he said shoot the fafnir). They have some structures, but the rest is non fancy terrain really.

I dont have much to say other than - Thank you OP and some others in this thread for speaking highly of those maps. I was the original creator (Linkin Frost) of two of the maps being talked about in this thread (the ones from the first video) called Dustbowl and Ring of Fire. Ring of Fire was my first map (volcano map) which is why the texturing and everything looks pretty amateurish By the time I started Dust Bowl I'd learned of world builder tools and a lot more about lighting, etc so things look more put together. If you compare the scale of MWO maps to MW:LL it's pretty amazing - at 1:35 in the video there is a shot of mountains in the background of Dustbowl... those were in the map and you could wander (or fly) over to them!

Speaking of amateurish - I was not a member of the MW:LL dev team until the very end. I had never created maps before and just got interested in the CryEngine editor. Figured out how to put all that together over a few months. It was a super fun hobby and eventually they rolled my community created maps into the official map pack for the game.

Something to think about - I was some random guy, building them in my spare time, with zero art experience before the project and hammered them out over the span of a few months each. Given that, I'm not sure what to think about the MWO team's velocity of map creation.

So thanks again for making my day. I'd never seen that tribute video and it was incredibly nice to see someone turn my maps into map-porn

Edited by Iron Frost, 07 August 2014 - 02:43 PM.

[Kyle Wright]

Iron Frost, on 07 August 2014 - 02:38 PM, said:

I dont have much to say other than - Thank you OP and some others in this thread for speaking highly of those maps. I was the original creator (Linkin Frost) of two of the maps being talked about in this thread (the ones from the first video) called Dustbowl and Ring of Fire. Ring of Fire was my first map (volcano map) which is why the texturing and everything looks pretty amateurish By the time I started Dust Bowl I'd learned of world builder tools and a lot more about lighting, etc so things look more put together. If you compare the scale of MWO maps to MW:LL it's pretty amazing - at 1:35 in the video there is a shot of mountains in the background of Dustbowl... those were in the map and you could wander (or fly) over to them!

Speaking of amateurish - I was not a member of the MW:LL dev team until the very end. I had never created maps before and just got interested in the CryEngine editor. Figured out how to put all that together over a few months. It was a super fun hobby and eventually they rolled my community created maps into the official map pack for the game.

Something to think about - I was some random guy, building them in my spare time, with zero art experience before the project and hammered them out over the span of a few months each. Given that, I'm not sure what to think about the MWO team's velocity of map creation.

So thanks again for making my day. I'd never seen that tribute video and it was incredibly nice to see someone turn my maps into map-porn

Dude you deserve it, I stumbled on the first video last night (there is a 2nd one btw) and snow balled from there. MWO has better mech design and HUD display, however the maps though are way over done. The maps that you achieved though simple in some aspects, and yet you captured immersion which is big for a war game, the terrain features are realistic, and they are not over the top. there is something to be said for simplicity that can capture the imagination.

Do us a favor when you become a billionaire, make a island like Ring of Fire and ill gladly pay any admission fee to roll around in tanks or something that shoots paint rounds or play laser tag lol.

Edited by Kyle Wright, 07 August 2014 - 02:50 PM.

[Praehotec8]

keith, on 07 August 2014 - 01:44 PM, said:

this is such a said thing from a f2p company. the more players they have the more money they can make. therefore u need to make content that keeps free players too.

While this was certainly a public relations gaffe, it is unfortunately the truth and a problem with the f2p model in general. Things are created with the sole goal of immediate profit return.

Many of us would much prefer to pay a one-time fee to purchase the software license (i.e. "buying the game/retail box price") to the play for "free", with purchasable "extra" content. However, companies have learned that there is a lot of money to be made from "content" purchases - thus, the f2p genre, and even small chunks of "dlc", as well as the ever increasing prevalence of cash-only stores in retail games.

The upside of f2p is that anyone can jump in and play, with the downsides being that oftentimes one must pay to experience the game to its fullest and that any content requiring investment cost without immediate marketability will inevitably take a back seat to items that can be sold.immediately.

Speaking as someone who has spent more than is probably reasonable on this game (phoenix, saber, clan, MC, premium time, etc), I would love if it had been possible to have the game developed and sold as a single package with an expansion or two, but at this point it is what it is, and despite the gauche attitude displayed by Nikolai's post, it is a very common sentiment in the f2p world.

[Sug]

Might have been posted already but here's an old article on the map building process.

http://www.penny-arc...l#/entry/signin


When it first came out I remember a lot of comments on how PGI is doing it wrong.

[Noth]

Sug, on 07 August 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

Might have been posted already but here's an old article on the map building process.

http://www.penny-arc...l#/entry/signin


When it first came out I remember a lot of comments on how PGI is doing it wrong.

Honestly, a lot of people will tell PGI they are doing it wrong no matter how many maps or size of maps they bring out. Thta said PGI does need more maps.

[Zanathan]

I agree that PGI need to rethink how they are doing maps. I totally understand the time and effort involved in creating new textures and meshes, creating the intricate details and also ensuring it renders efficiently (performs well).

However the main problem I see with their approach is they spend so much time and effort on details that are of little reward to them and of little concern to the players. If anyone remembers the old article on how they went about creating maps, one of the diagrams was for frozen city and the designers spent time angling the buildings to make it look like they are under stress from the advancing glacier. Now thats cool but for a end user it means little especially if it doesnt directly impact gameplay.

[Sandpit]

Sug, on 07 August 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

Might have been posted already but here's an old article on the map building process.

http://www.penny-arc...l#/entry/signin


When it first came out I remember a lot of comments on how PGI is doing it wrong.

that actually explains a lot. The more articles and "behind the scenes" type stuff I see it really seems like Paul and Russ like to micro-manage everything.

That could explain a LOT of the delays and resources spent. Then you couple that with a small team (no, that's not an excuse, I personally feel that they've had plenty of time and money to expand their company, that's on them but it is the reality) and you get 10 maps in 3 years.

This needs to change if that's their process. There's no reason for a map to take 4 months and $250,000. That's ridiculous, especially given the size of most maps. IF we were talking wide open sandbox type maps like need for speed, gta, etc. maybe I could see that a bit better but if this is their "best" process.....

well let's just say management needs to reevaluate a few things.

Noth, on 07 August 2014 - 03:06 PM, said:

Honestly, a lot of people will tell PGI they are doing it wrong no matter how many maps or size of maps they bring out. Thta said PGI does need more maps.

yes they would. There's always going to be those that are never happy or satisfied. That doesn't excuse 3 years and 10 maps totaling $2.5 million.

I mean seriously, let that sink in a minute. 3 years (1095 days) and $2,500,000 for 10 maps.

You don't see the problem with that? There's somethign wrong somewhere if every single map you make takes up that much in resources. Whether that be micro-management, wasted resources, complicated procedures, etc.

I make a living and have built an excellent reputation within my job improving efficiency and streamlining processes so taht people don't have to work as hard and produce more at the same time. When I see stuff like this it immediately tells me that there's something wrong in their process. This is especially true when I, without being anywhere near as competent as a professional, can build an entire plot in Second Life complete with buildings, scripts, music, vegetation, landscaping, and geometry using original textures and building everythign from scratch about 1% of that time and cost.

That's what some of us can't understand. You seriously have resources, textures, geometry, structures, etc. from 10 maps and 3 years of experience working with whatever system you're currently using and it's still taking you 4 months and $250,000? Someone needs to take a long hard look at that process and see where it can be improved because that simply isn't cutting it.

Do you realize at that pace it would take 10 years and $7,500,000 just to get to 40 different maps? If you don't see a problem with that process.... well more power to you, but the majority of customers are not going to agree with you and I sincerely doubt that the number of people who find this "acceptable" is large enough to monetarily support this game alone...

[Noth]

Sandpit, on 07 August 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

that actually explains a lot. The more articles and "behind the scenes" type stuff I see it really seems like Paul and Russ like to micro-manage everything.

That could explain a LOT of the delays and resources spent. Then you couple that with a small team (no, that's not an excuse, I personally feel that they've had plenty of time and money to expand their company, that's on them but it is the reality) and you get 10 maps in 3 years.

This needs to change if that's their process. There's no reason for a map to take 4 months and $250,000. That's ridiculous, especially given the size of most maps. IF we were talking wide open sandbox type maps like need for speed, gta, etc. maybe I could see that a bit better but if this is their "best" process.....

well let's just say management needs to reevaluate a few things.


yes they would. There's always going to be those that are never happy or satisfied. That doesn't excuse 3 years and 10 maps totaling $2.5 million.

I mean seriously, let that sink in a minute. 3 years (1095 days) and $2,500,000 for 10 maps.

You don't see the problem with that? There's somethign wrong somewhere if every single map you make takes up that much in resources. Whether that be micro-management, wasted resources, complicated procedures, etc.

I make a living and have built an excellent reputation within my job improving efficiency and streamlining processes so taht people don't have to work as hard and produce more at the same time. When I see stuff like this it immediately tells me that there's something wrong in their process. This is especially true when I, without being anywhere near as competent as a professional, can build an entire plot in Second Life complete with buildings, scripts, music, vegetation, landscaping, and geometry using original textures and building everythign from scratch about 1% of that time and cost.

That's what some of us can't understand. You seriously have resources, textures, geometry, structures, etc. from 10 maps and 3 years of experience working with whatever system you're currently using and it's still taking you 4 months and $250,000? Someone needs to take a long hard look at that process and see where it can be improved because that simply isn't cutting it.

Do you realize at that pace it would take 10 years and $7,500,000 just to get to 40 different maps? If you don't see a problem with that process.... well more power to you, but the majority of customers are not going to agree with you and I sincerely doubt that the number of people who find this "acceptable" is large enough to monetarily support this game alone...

I do see a problem with that. However, do you honestly think these threads are going to change anything at all?

I also don't think constant stream of new maps and game modes are vital for this game to stay alive, nice to have, definitely, but there are larger more successful f2p games that get away with much less.

[Sug]

PGI tends to build everything from the ground up from scratch every time no matter what it is, instead of taking the time to build a set of tools that would allow them to quickly create and change things.

It's like making your house out of legos instead of using prefabed sections. Yeah, that lego house is going to be really cool and detailed when it's done but you'll be living in a god damn tent for 3 years while you build it.

Edited by Sug, 07 August 2014 - 04:01 PM.

[keith]

Noth, on 07 August 2014 - 03:39 PM, said:

I do see a problem with that. However, do you honestly think these threads are going to change anything at all?

I also don't think constant stream of new maps and game modes are vital for this game to stay alive, nice to have, definitely, but there are larger more successful f2p games that get away with much less.

in a way i can agree. counter strike could get away with de_dust and de_dust 2. the only 2 maps most ppl play on. the core game play needs to be addicting and have some meaning

[Sandpit]

Noth, on 07 August 2014 - 03:39 PM, said:

I do see a problem with that. However, do you honestly think these threads are going to change anything at all?

I also don't think constant stream of new maps and game modes are vital for this game to stay alive, nice to have, definitely, but there are larger more successful f2p games that get away with much less.

considering these types of threads have led to Russ finally agreeing to consider alternatives? yes

it is vital. it's vital because that's what reduces the repetition.

[Sug]

Zanathan, on 07 August 2014 - 03:29 PM, said:

However the main problem I see with their approach is they spend so much time and effort on details that are of little reward to them and of little concern to the players.

Has anyone noticed another players camo ever? Unless it's like bright pink all mechs just look the same in game.

[pcunite]

I hope they make an offline version of the game (single player) so that I can have something to play when they run this ONLINE version into the ground.

[Sandpit]

keith, on 07 August 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

in a way i can agree. counter strike could get away with de_dust and de_dust 2. the only 2 maps most ppl play on. the core game play needs to be addicting and have some meaning

I agree, but this game is also premised around conquering entire planets. maps are badly needed. They aren't a "make or break" in my opinion, but they are extremely important.

This also goes beyond "just" maps. If this is how their entire company and design process runs for every aspect of the game, well I can understand why in 3 years we have
10 maps
2 game modes
and 0 campaign

and if Niko's statements regarding "mc impact" are true, then I can also understand why we have 100 mechs

Something has to change if PGI wants to expand and become more successful. They've got a chance to be a AAA game developer. They're fumbling thus far and proving that they weren't ready to be the lead on a big project at this point. They've really got to take a long hard look at their processes and figure out why everything is so slow and tedious.

[Johnny Z]

Relax! The programers and map designers and art team have moved from the much anticipated and newly released Hamster Project, to the lesser known and not really needed Map Project.

Yes after 6 months of working on the recently released Hamster Content we will be getting a new map SOON.

BTW My face hurts from smiling about this.

Edited by Johnny Z, 07 August 2014 - 05:13 PM.

[Sandpit]

Sug, on 07 August 2014 - 04:09 PM, said:

Has anyone noticed another players camo ever? Unless it's like bright pink all mechs just look the same in game.

I do honestly lol

I'm always checking out other players' camos and color schemes

[Primetimex]

pcunite, on 07 August 2014 - 04:11 PM, said:

I hope they make an offline version of the game (single player) so that I can have something to play when they run this ONLINE version into the ground.

BWHAHAHAHA