My ultimate suggestion is that you don't focus on maps. Work on more mechs so mechs come out faster and more on time according to lore. Leave the map making to the community let the population put forth and make their ideas into maps that would be used in MWO. Living Legends does this already and they have tons of maps that were made by the community that play the game. Also with the history of the Battletech franchise you will have tons of people that know the lore and that will make maps that are in the books or that just work for MWO.
1
Maps
Started by Flaming Moth, Aug 13 2014 08:37 PM
13 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 13 August 2014 - 08:37 PM
#2
Posted 13 August 2014 - 08:48 PM
I fully agree with you Flaming Moth. Allowing the community to situate the map designs would help alleviate the stress the designers have. Thus allowing the mechs and C.W. to get focused on.
#3
Posted 13 August 2014 - 08:58 PM
yes give us the mapmaking tools and we make our own maps
#4
Posted 14 August 2014 - 05:53 AM
I cast my vote, leave it to the players
#5
Posted 14 August 2014 - 08:25 AM
I had a thread going for this same idea, as well as a means for them to implement. Link is in my signature - but totally voted for the players to work on maps.
Not saying IG doesn't need to also keep someone on maps, but at least giving us the existing toolset and libraries for map creation to make it so we can get more variations of Alpine, Desert, and Tundra maps would be nice to have.
Not saying IG doesn't need to also keep someone on maps, but at least giving us the existing toolset and libraries for map creation to make it so we can get more variations of Alpine, Desert, and Tundra maps would be nice to have.
#6
Posted 14 August 2014 - 05:06 PM
Both!
#7
Posted 14 August 2014 - 05:32 PM
Only correction I would make is that PGI should focus on balance, AI, Community Warfare, a single player campaign, and new game modes. Mechs should be shuffled to the bottom of the list. We have enough mechs. I'd like more put into the game built around the mechs now. Let players worry about maps, sure.
#8
Posted 14 August 2014 - 08:57 PM
Check Devlogs.
Russ would like the community to suggest a map they would like to see added
[EXAMPLE] - http://mwomercs.com/...opical-caverns/
And they may possibly allow the community to make them later.
Russ would like the community to suggest a map they would like to see added
[EXAMPLE] - http://mwomercs.com/...opical-caverns/
And they may possibly allow the community to make them later.
#9
Posted 15 August 2014 - 09:13 AM
This is a great idea! If not entirely hand over the map making at least let the community submit maps for review to help out in the area.
#10
Posted 15 August 2014 - 02:32 PM
Well PGI does not seem to be doing it anymore...
#11
Posted 15 August 2014 - 05:25 PM
Having a Map Creation tool available to the community, so that the community can submit Map Designs would be a great step forward. Just need to make sure they tick the liability waiver before they can post it. Because I believe that is one of the main issues. Who actually "owns" the Map, and all that bull.
#12
Posted 17 August 2014 - 03:03 AM
PLayers do maps, and PGI select from this pool.
#13
Posted 20 August 2014 - 08:33 AM
There is a lot more work that goes into making a map than most people realize. Each and every tree, building and rock are placed by hand. The terrain is hand crafted and everything is tested to make sure that it is fair. You don't want to make a fortress that one team spawns in and the other team cant overcome. Not to mention other considerations such as firing lines, cover, size of the maps. On the technical side, how many particle effects can be placed without a drain on performance. How many objects can be placed and how close together to keep the total polys (or tris, or even verts for that matter) from being a drain. If you have too much geometry in one place the computer can have a hard time keeping track but if you spread that same geometry out on a large map and have the draw distance down the computer can ignore objects that are far away and help speed up rendering. That brings be to another consideration, level of detail on the objects at range vs up close. The assets that you are adding, Lets say a building. at 2km is just a simple 6 sided object. at 500m you add all the detail and its now a 500 polygon object. at what point do you add the detail in so that you cant see its and obvious box. Depending on the engine you may have to decide that per map. draw too much detail and the map becomes a fight against lag
#14
Posted 20 August 2014 - 08:53 AM
I wish PGI would put some emphasis on getting more maps out there. We have enough race cars already, we need more tracks to race them on.
More maps will generate more money for the company by keeping the players engaged and interested. And we need more than one or two maps in a year.
I have 70 freaking mechs. Please give me somewhere new to run them.
Thanks.
More maps will generate more money for the company by keeping the players engaged and interested. And we need more than one or two maps in a year.
I have 70 freaking mechs. Please give me somewhere new to run them.
Thanks.
5 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users