421 replies to this topic

[EGG]

Stay on topic BLOOD WOLF, ie - MWLL maps into MWO. If you want to shitpost about Roland take it to PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

EGG, on 16 August 2014 - 06:18 PM, said:

Stay on topic BLOOD WOLF, ie - MWLL maps into MWO. If you want to shitpost about Roland take it to PM.

Did you not see the post he made about me? yet when I respond It is off topic. you are right. I will just ignore him from now on. Seems like I wounded him in some way. oh well.

If you quote him and say the same thing I will say its fair, he don't **** posts me and expect me not to respond. Or maybe I need to be the bigger person and not respond to begin with. choices, choices

Then again the frame of he did so that makes it okay for me to do it, is not a good defense.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 16 August 2014 - 06:28 PM.

[Wolfways]

1453 R, on 16 August 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:

Or, AS PIRANHA THEMSELVES HAS STATED, C.) MWLL maps, and player-created maps, would need to be converted into code workable for MWO anyways, as well as receive a graphical facelift and a thrice-over by QA along with everything else that goes into the game, and and such 'taking' maps from MWLL, or any other source, doesn't actually significantly decrease the amount of work a new map takes to get into the game. About all it does is save Piranha the time of devising the overall layout of the map.

yeesh. When are people going to stop conspiracizing that Piranha legal-judo'd MWLL away?

It may take just as long but at least we'd have better maps

[Sandpit]

BLOOD WOLF, on 16 August 2014 - 06:00 PM, said:

13 years, indeed. Anyone can learn Computer Algorithm. It isn't that difficult. The number of years doing it does not mean much. you could have learned it in a year and been fluent for 12 years.

this is why I'm just putting you on the ignore list
smh

[BLOOD WOLF]

Sandpit, on 16 August 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

this is why I'm just putting you on the ignore list
smh

Go ahead, wont hurt me much. I am already tired of the same people over and over again.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 16 August 2014 - 06:46 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Sandpit, on 16 August 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

this is why I'm just putting you on the ignore list
smh

This kid is younger than any of us, and can do it better than probably anyone here. He did it barbecue he spent the time to learn. In 10 years he is probably not going to be doing anything different than he is now in terms of doing anything new unless technology shifts and that is a whole different story. Doing it for 10 years or 1 year does not make a difference. you just learn to error less in your endeavors.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 16 August 2014 - 06:57 PM.

[Sandpit]

BLOOD WOLF, on 16 August 2014 - 06:35 PM, said:

Go ahead, wont hurt me much. I am already tired of the same people over and over again.

so am I, that's why i'm putting YOU on ignore now
really this time
promise
I would have last time but it was delayed for a game

[BLOOD WOLF]

Sandpit I am glad, I am really tired of going in it with you and the same people over and over again. EGO is amazing is it not, anyone else that feels the same as sandpit, feel free to add me to the ignore list.

If i knew how to do it I would be glad and would have done it a year ago.
Same for you Roland, I already see your name and feel an insult coming, just block me and be done with it.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 16 August 2014 - 07:00 PM.

[Wolfways]

If we ignored everyone who is delusional there would be no need for mental hospitals...or politicians

[BLOOD WOLF]

can you even block people? I didn't even know their was a block button

[Aim64C]

Honestly, I don't look at names. I just look at posts and call the people who made them stupid (or smart, but that is a very rare thing). Then I realize it is someone I generally agree with about six exchanges into an argument.

I think that makes me the textbook definition of "A loose cannon."

"They told me to rain hell down on the infantry... they didn't tell me anything about not shooting the blue ones."

[BLOOD WOLF]

Aim64C, on 16 August 2014 - 07:11 PM, said:

Honestly, I don't look at names. I just look at posts and call the people who made them stupid (or smart, but that is a very rare thing). Then I realize it is someone I generally agree with about six exchanges into an argument.

I think that makes me the textbook definition of "A loose cannon."

"They told me to rain hell down on the infantry... they didn't tell me anything about not shooting the blue ones."

Its started to get to the point where a few just see my name and go on the offense. I do not want to waste time on threads with this, and I know I shouldn't engage. For who I am that is impossible. I follow Socratic principle so Its not easy. If sandpit can block i want to know how I can too. I know for a fact that later down the road somebody is just going to insult me again for past dealings.

Once again I apologize to the people who do not want to see multiple post of nothing to do with the OP. this detracts from the thread, and offers nothing. In person I would never even engage at this angle but I admit once I get to typing it just keep at it.

So does anybody know how to block people? can you actually block people?

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 16 August 2014 - 07:23 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Ok, So after reading though nine pages of this crap... let's see if I've gotten the gist of what's been decided in this thread.

-MWO spending 250K/map [including but not limited to all aspects of payment of employees and assets.] Is too much.
- It would be overall cheaper to import user created [or other game created] maps and bring them up to snuff.
-Bloodwolf and Sandpit are antagnizing one another. And this cycle will forever continue.[I couldn't resist guys, after 9 pages, I had to get a tiny dig in.]

Look, All I want, are new maps. It does not take much for them to take existing maps, and fix weather and lighting settings, to make a "new" map. Each map should have 3 versions frankly. To illistrate this I'll use Forrest Colony as an example.

Verison 1 of Forrest Colony should be standard Forrest Colony.
Version 2 should be Forrest Colony Snow.
Version 3 should be Forrest Colony Night.

Each map should have minimum of 3 versions. IE Caustic should have
Caustic Valley
Caustic Valley Night.
Caustic Valley [Weather variation]

Make sense? That alone would triple the maps we have, and change the existing game a bit due to having to take into consideration night matches and the like. Also different weather conditions can change heat effencency of known maps.

Imagine Terra Therma, with a non-active volcano and a heavy rain? Or a daytime version that's even hotter than the standard?

So that fixes 1 issue alone and would expand the maps we have. [and is acceptable given community warfare being on the way, thus allowing for night ops on all maps and varrying conditions.]

The second issue is actual, new maps, something we sorely need. we have been playing these same maps for a year now, with nothing new... we NEED a new map atleast, because things are getting very stale.

We need another moon-esque map, a forrest map [think Endor from Star Wars.] a swamp map, some more indoor-esque maps ALA HPG network style... Foundry's and factorys and the like.

I've pumped enough money into this game, and I know plenty of others have paid as much, if not more than me into it... And here we are still sitting with the same maps we've had for a year.

I enjoy the game we have, I look forward to the game we COULD have... it's all a matter of PGI pulling their heads free of their sphincters and giving us what we need.

[Sandpit]

Aim64C, on 16 August 2014 - 07:11 PM, said:

Honestly, I don't look at names. I just look at posts and call the people who made them stupid (or smart, but that is a very rare thing). Then I realize it is someone I generally agree with about six exchanges into an argument.

I think that makes me the textbook definition of "A loose cannon."

"They told me to rain hell down on the infantry... they didn't tell me anything about not shooting the blue ones."

that's usually because people want to make it personal for some reason.

"PGI sucks"
"You stfu! they're great! you're a bad person! how dare you say that!"

instead of
"PGI sucks"
"Well ok, I don't agree because "xyz" but I'm not going to act like you just called my mom dirty names because first and foremost I'm not PGI, secondly PGI is a faceless entity as a company of many"

and then
"PGI sucks!"
"No they don't because of "xyz" so I don't agree with you"
"You're a whiteknight and blinded"

It's the same. I've been called a troll, whiteknight, AND fanboy all in the same day on these forums. Hell I've literally been called a white knight and a pgi hater in the very same thread.

If you say disagree with ANYone on here you're automatically labeled white knight or troll depending on what the OP was saying in the first place. Then you get the "experts" who want to assume nobody knows anything about how games are made. If you show them you have that kind of knowledge or experience then it either becomes "well that doesn't count because I can't really come up with a concrete argument to dispute that so we'll just say it doesn't count instead" OR "well you're biased so your knowledge and experience doesn't count because you aren't agreeing with me due to bias"

Flash Frame, on 16 August 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

Ok, So after reading though nine pages of this crap... let's see if I've gotten the gist of what's been decided in this thread.

-MWO spending 250K/map [including but not limited to all aspects of payment of employees and assets.] Is too much.
- It would be overall cheaper to import user created [or other game created] maps and bring them up to snuff.
-Bloodwolf and Sandpit are antagnizing one another. And this cycle will forever continue.[I couldn't resist guys, after 9 pages, I had to get a tiny dig in.]

Look, All I want, are new maps. It does not take much for them to take existing maps, and fix weather and lighting settings, to make a "new" map. Each map should have 3 versions frankly. To illistrate this I'll use Forrest Colony as an example.

Verison 1 of Forrest Colony should be standard Forrest Colony.
Version 2 should be Forrest Colony Snow.
Version 3 should be Forrest Colony Night.

Each map should have minimum of 3 versions. IE Caustic should have
Caustic Valley
Caustic Valley Night.
Caustic Valley [Weather variation]

Make sense? That alone would triple the maps we have, and change the existing game a bit due to having to take into consideration night matches and the like. Also different weather conditions can change heat effencency of known maps.

Imagine Terra Therma, with a non-active volcano and a heavy rain? Or a daytime version that's even hotter than the standard?

So that fixes 1 issue alone and would expand the maps we have. [and is acceptable given community warfare being on the way, thus allowing for night ops on all maps and varrying conditions.]

The second issue is actual, new maps, something we sorely need. we have been playing these same maps for a year now, with nothing new... we NEED a new map atleast, because things are getting very stale.

We need another moon-esque map, a forrest map [think Endor from Star Wars.] a swamp map, some more indoor-esque maps ALA HPG network style... Foundry's and factorys and the like.

I've pumped enough money into this game, and I know plenty of others have paid as much, if not more than me into it... And here we are still sitting with the same maps we've had for a year.

I enjoy the game we have, I look forward to the game we COULD have... it's all a matter of PGI pulling their heads free of their sphincters and giving us what we need.

I think everyone (except PGI cheerleaders) would agree 100% with you.

[EgoSlayer]

Assmodeus, on 16 August 2014 - 03:44 PM, said:

<snip>

Alreech, on 16 August 2014 - 08:35 AM, said:

Why should they do it ?
PGI decided to generate their profit with selling Mechs & Cockpit Items, so putting money in new maps is from a economic point of view wasted money.
Selling maps is a no go, because it divides the playerbase. PGI can't make money from maps like they do it with Mechs and Cockpit Items, so any $ spend on a map is a $ that doesn't generate profit.

I'm not against profit, a company what doesn't generate profit will not least long.

This is a popular explanation but admit, it's too simplistic and insulting if true. Any company that takes that attitude to a unique offering in an economic recession deserves to fail. This is an organism that needs to be fed and nurtured (augmented) to compete against other the other mega beasts (WoT?) of the veldtlands. The competition is low in this climate so survival (the money) is almost guarenteed if the beast can stay healthy.

It's a direct quote from Nick:
http://mwomercs.com/...50#entry3581650

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 24 July 2014 - 01:28 AM, said:

Will more maps make the game better? Sure!

There's a caveat. Simply put, maps are a major resource drain. It means putting aside any other regular content delivery, bug fixing or other service improvements from almost every department. It also means their indirect impact on MC sales hasn't actually been significant enough in the past to make them a top priority as compared to the other things mentioned above.

This isn't to say they aren't a priority at all: Industrial map is steaming towards us. Just keep in mind, we do have a responsibility to ourselves, the game, and the community as a whole to focus our efforts where it will best help the game prosper.

Otherwise, I ask to all, any suggestions on more direct avenues to reach our goals?

Saved for posterity as an image here:
http://mwomercs.com/...he-game-better/

Coupled with another recent quote:
http://mwomercs.com/...05#entry3400305


It's very clear that Maps != MC thus lower priority than new MC content.

Even if the cost numbers are a true representation, community maps would cost less and require less over head because you don't have the artists and modelers working on the maps, that's done by the community. The only part that remains is the QA, which even if that is half of the costs still represents a significant savings for PGI. And promotes good community relations, improved game play, faster map releases, etc.

In reference to the prevously posted PAX east video - Skip to the 20 minute mark. Brian says it takes about 3 months and between $70,000 and $250,000 to build a map.

But PGI has said, repeatedly, that community content is something they are not going to consider for various reasons so most of this discussion is sadly just wasted breath.

EDIT: clean up some formatting and added additional quote from 'Alreech' to provide contex.

Edited by EgoSlayer, 16 August 2014 - 07:56 PM.

[Sandpit]

The problem is we don't have new maps BECAUSE they claim it costs $250,000 to create one. Those of us in the community that have any kind of experience with this kind of stuff want to know why the f*ck after 3 years in development they haven't been able to streamline their process to get that cost down.

We also want to know why the f**k after 3 years in development they're having to build every single map from scratch including textures, art, etc. instead of reusing other assets already created for the game.

In other words, some of us are saying it's complete and total bullsh*t for PGI to be spending that kind of money on each and every map. If they are spending that much on each and every map then they need to completely scrap their current process and come up with a better process in general.

It's not about "argghhh PGI suxxors" (although a few cheerleaders would like to make it sound like that), it's about wanting to know why PGI (unlike every other multi-million dollar professional game company out there) hasn't (after 3 years and millions of dollars mind you) hasn't been able to speed up their process because the only way map making should be that expensive in both time and money is if they're building every single aspect of it from scratch.

3 years
10 maps
no excuse

If it's taking that much time and money to create a map if all things, then change your process. THAT is what this is all about.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Sandpit, on 16 August 2014 - 07:33 PM, said:

that's usually because people want to make it personal for some reason.


instead of
"PGI sucks!"
"No they don't because of "xyz" so I don't agree with you"

It's hard to not make it personal when somebody aka Roland keeps gunning for you. Same person that every time I elaborate a response I got accused of try to throw out people opinions. Look back on this thread go ahead and go back and tell me who was the first to make it personal.

Things were actually going smooth until I may have mistook your "wow" for some kind of lack of intelligence on my part or as belittlement. You tell me. I do know how to code But I am way better at 3D modeling.

Oh yea, and look back to our first interaction on this page and figure out where things go sour.

I have no clue how I get into the kinds of talks.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 16 August 2014 - 07:58 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Posted 13 August 2014 - 11:24 PM
Greetings all,

Reference what the Dev.'s or specifically 'Russ' stated on the VLogs about community created maps.

He did not say no, but, "not at this time".

- And addressed PGI getting more directed impute from the community about the specific aspects we would like to see them direct there attention and resources at. (in the short term)
- There was a poll issued, and a comment section.

Maps, in general, are a much longer term project.
- They require resources to be produced from PGI to support any function.
- They require personnel and time from PGI for any meaningful element we may be able to create.
- They require some form of 'separated' environment to build and test the function of the maps.
(with working movement dynamics of elements, being able to have object function as they were designed.)
- And PGI does not have a very large resource group of people to draw from currently, to start or even assist in this development.

Some of the comments from the developers and creators of the Maps from MW:LL show just how difficult and time consuming this task is. With some of those maps taking nearly a year or more 'to get right', and the creators still make comments, in hindsight, that they would change some of the current map content.
(never happy with a finished map, little tweak here and there. But that's the artist in them.)

- Creating a map is NOT a week or month project, with some of the smaller detail areas taking months to 'get right'.
(from what I've heard it's a frustrating and time consuming task, with the details and fine tuning taking the majority of the creation time.)
- Releasing or at least opening up the library of materials and objects that PGI has created may be another issue. Once it's 'out there' you can never get it back. (legal issue's)
- And can 'created' elements be introduced? What's the legal standing? Copy write issues. Content created rites signed over to PGI? I see Lawyers getting heavily involved here. (It could be simplified by only allowing PGI created content into an editor, but there's problems whenever the 'Library' is updated with new content.)

Others have stated that the Cryengine comes with it's own editor, but who owns the content and material that the 'editor' has in it's library of objects? If your paying to use the Licence, will you now have to pay for every object you use from that editor in your BattleTech game? What exactly does PGI's licence state they can do with or use from the Engine.

Just some ramblings and thoughts,
9erRed


From a similar thread. I think that sums it up. There are some real interesting points made.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 16 August 2014 - 08:03 PM.

[TKSax]

BLOOD WOLF, on 16 August 2014 - 07:53 PM, said:

I have no clue how I get into the kinds of talks.

You get in the "talks" with lots of different people, me included.. and there is one constant in these talks...

Edited by TKSax, 16 August 2014 - 08:05 PM.

[Noesis]

$70,000 and $250,000, so not all maps cost $250,000. Maybe then some of the cheaper maps involve refined techniques.

Oh and Sandpit, if you didn't insult the devs with unfounded repetition whilst also admitting to support the interests of a group wanting to be able to develop MWO content or take over from PGI though you don't even have a license, admit to being an amateur and then have the arrogance to claim all your "speculation" as fact.

Case and point Mr Statistician you claim $250,000 being the de facto cost and yet don't recognise the spread of the values described above and provided from the video. If some maps are significantly cheaper then perhaps PGI have managed to refine their techniques? Perhaps you should accept due to this range that your comment and argument might not be as solid that you thought. But no ....... you keep bashing away believing in your thoughts and claiming the truth position.

And then you wonder why people complain about your bias and fallacies? Usually end up simply getting ignored by you who present a good argument against your posting or provide sufficient enough a case to demonstrate why your "fallacies" are not accurate.

Then you complain you are being ignored and point the finger at others about not being able to see things for what they are arrogantly assuming you must be right when you can't equally proove the tin foil ass-hattery you present. And yet even with you wearing these blinkers we have to listen to this garbage being spammed all over the forum and twitter, irresepctive of discussion or others opinions, sometimes being insulted for even offering an alternative point of view. See above.

And you see this as acceptable?