421 replies to this topic

[-Natural Selection-]

10 new maps would set things about right. Just make it happen please.

[PANZERKAT]

Henri Schoots, on 19 August 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

http://mwllmaps.com/...80-1024x640.jpg

http://pytak.net/ima...cat_savanna.jpg


?

I'd rather play that game.

[Voidcrafter]

KOMMISSAR KITTY, on 20 August 2014 - 03:01 AM, said:

I'd rather play that game.

The more things from that game get posted, the more I begin to think like you

[EvilCow]

KOMMISSAR KITTY, on 20 August 2014 - 03:01 AM, said:

I'd rather play that game.

I played that map (and enjoyed it), it is impressively realistic and HUGE.

Look also those buildings, yes, you can tell those are buildings not something thrown out an exposition of bad modern art.

Edited by EvilCow, 20 August 2014 - 04:12 AM.

[PANZERKAT]

Surely MMLL had little statues that can block a mech mid stride.

[Samophlange]

Wow. I can't believe I read all 20 pages...
There was alot of herp-derp hidden amongst the informed discussion.

Oh. My large laser is bigger than yours. So...take that.

Glad I could add this educated and insightful interjection into this fun tet-a-tet.
Enjoy the pew-pew!

[Almond Brown]

CocoaJin, on 16 August 2014 - 08:38 AM, said:

Some people just can't see things from a real world prospective. They think the world should operate in a way that suits their desires and needs. And everything that isn't an expressway for their narcissism is just doing it wrong.

You can't argue with that level of delusion heavy duty Tin Foil wearing.

FTFY

[Almond Brown]

Roland, on 16 August 2014 - 09:58 AM, said:

Because we know how to make maps for the cryengine, and it isn't that hard?

Then make one, you have a week, and we will judge it accordingly. Maybe even PGI would vet it for the Practice area. If your that confident what is to be lost? Or is it just all "talk" around here...

Edited by Almond Brown, 20 August 2014 - 08:53 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Almond Brown, on 20 August 2014 - 08:52 AM, said:

Then make one, you have a week, and we will judge it accordingly. Maybe even PGI would vet it for the Practice area. If your that confident what is to be lost? Or is it just all "talk" around here...

While I agree that it's absurd that PGI spends $250k on a map that takes months (almost a full year) to do, I would also like to see someone with some talent do this. Not as a "put your money where your mouth is" type challenge, but more of a "here's my week, your move PGI" type of challenge.

[Mirkk Defwode]

BLOOD WOLF, on 16 August 2014 - 08:02 PM, said:

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.

That actually doesn't sum it up. It touches the surface but also doesn't take into account there are Legal methods to all do this and to overlook it. Even if only the terrain design and assets are created by the community and it'll drastically shorten the time period for development and release of maps to the point of just placing objectives and potentially turrets within the maps and a shortened test pass to ensure quality prior to release.

I can see the potential of not releasing their tilesets as that is material created by them, but there is a market in open source art assets. Those generally can only be used for non-profit purposes but as it's been discussed that maps don't equal profit then that may be looked into.

Or they treat it like 343Industries, Tripwire Interactive and Crytek. Release the damned tilesets with a water mark and let people make content. Cause Halo has Forge which existed on the PC versions as well as console. Tripwire licensed and used Unreal, which they included UnrealEd with all their titles released (look in the tools on steam for anything associated with Killing Floor, Red Orchestra, Red Orchestra 2) and honestly all official Crytek titles have the CryEd included with the tileset for the title you purchased to make your own content.

As it goes for other materials to get a map out the door. I can say I have extensive experience at going through the development and release of content through multiple engines and platforms and I understand the depths it takes to create, test, iterate, then finally release all sorts of content.

Honestly the pissing match over credentials on this is also kinda sad. Having experience producing a good map even as a mod counts for a lot. The resources and work inside a dev team is approached differently but in the end they should both produce a reasonable if not good product.

I will say I can't speak to the cost of producing a map within a studio, I know the process and time, and manpower required but not really the cost. But that's with creating all new art assets and building a world associated with that. There is a substantial about of work that goes into creating new assets for an environment.

[Y E O N N E]

Halo on PC never had Forge. In fact, Halo on PC had to get a multiplayer-only version called Halo Custom Edition to allow official support for user-made content. And there was no in-game editor. You had the Halo Editing Kit, which consisted of Sapien, Guerilla, and Tool, and required 3ds Max to work at all. Halo 2 Vista had a similar editor, but it was deliberately locked and handicapped so only maps could be made, rather than full on custom content in all areas.

Halo Custom Edition was the guinea pig for the systems implemented in Halo 2+ for downloadable content.

[Sandpit]

Another thing

In order to cut down on costs it doesn't take a complete "ground-up" for every single map. We already have buildings and textures. We already have various ground, building, landscape, and sky textures, etc. We also have maps already designed. So instead of reinventing the wheel
every
single
time
how about taking existing maps and adding to them?
Take some of the maps (River City I'm looking at you) that are simply too small and weren't designed for 12v12 and expand them. The map itself is already built, simply add in a River City Expanded and just expand the size.
if the map is this size
------------------------------------------
| |
------------------------------------------

than just make it this size
___________________________
| |
| |
| |
--------------------------------------------

I know I say "simply" and it's a LITTLE more complex than that but it's FAR less complex and expensive to do this.

Same can be done with every other map on the small(ish) size

Then, instead of redesigning or creating, simply take pieces form the existing maps and piece them together to form a "new" map. Now not all maps would be able to do this but some maps could naturally flow well together. River city/Crimson could morph together. Canyon/Caustic could do the same.

All of this would increase the number of available maps quickly, cheaply, and most importantly, quickly.

[Xetelian]

I'm surpised by that number and think we should consider how many gold Khans that is

[Mott]

I'd love to see a cratered moon map. No structures needed, just hills, different sized craters and maybe some crystalline formations.

Considering those elements are already built for HPG Manifold and Tourmaline... that map should be DAYUM easy to pump out with minimal time and effort.

[Zyllos]

Roland, on 18 August 2014 - 02:26 PM, said:

Well, that is a fair complaint.
Back in mw4, we saw the map BEFORE selecting our mech, which actually enabled much more varied builds, since different maps facilitated builds which might not have been generally useful.

While I think having all your mechs available for selection after seeing the map would just make meta builds even worse, I think having a selection of up to 4 mechs with a tonnage limit would be a huge improvement.

Of course, this wouldn't work for the pug drops as we have the 3/3/3/3 limit but in CW drops, this would easily work as there is clear defined drop leaders and most likely no 3/3/3/3 (I hope).

[CDLord HHGD]

Zyllos, on 21 August 2014 - 07:18 AM, said:

While I think having all your mechs available for selection after seeing the map would just make meta builds even worse, I think having a selection of up to 4 mechs with a tonnage limit would be a huge improvement.

Of course, this wouldn't work for the pug drops as we have the 3/3/3/3 limit but in CW drops, this would easily work as there is clear defined drop leaders and most likely no 3/3/3/3 (I hope).

Random Random.... Random map and select 4 mechs and randomly drop in one of the 4.

[Almond Brown]

cdlord, on 20 August 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

While I agree that it's absurd that PGI spends $250k on a map that takes months (almost a full year) to do, I would also like to see someone with some talent do this. Not as a "put your money where your mouth is" type challenge, but more of a "here's my week, your move PGI" type of challenge.

Well talk is cheap. Any map made outside would need the same level of graphic leveling as the PGI one. One 1024 x 768 render don't count. It will require many available renders for all Graphic setting levels, etc etc. Stating "a week" to do one, right, sounds pretty fishy...

Btw, I will be landing on Mars next week. The "private sector" sucks at such stuff. Who needs Engineers, Rocket Scientists and 2.5 billion dollars. I built my spaceship in the basement... LOL!

[Almond Brown]

Sandpit, on 20 August 2014 - 03:10 PM, said:

Another thing

In order to cut down on costs it doesn't take a complete "ground-up" for every single map. We already have buildings and textures. We already have various ground, building, landscape, and sky textures, etc. We also have maps already designed. So instead of reinventing the wheel
every
single
time
how about taking existing maps and adding to them?
Take some of the maps (River City I'm looking at you) that are simply too small and weren't designed for 12v12 and expand them. The map itself is already built, simply add in a River City Expanded and just expand the size.
if the map is this size
------------------------------------------
| |
------------------------------------------

than just make it this size
___________________________
| |
| |
| |
--------------------------------------------

I know I say "simply" and it's a LITTLE more complex than that but it's FAR less complex and expensive to do this.

Same can be done with every other map on the small(ish) size

Then, instead of redesigning or creating, simply take pieces form the existing maps and piece them together to form a "new" map. Now not all maps would be able to do this but some maps could naturally flow well together. River city/Crimson could morph together. Canyon/Caustic could do the same.

All of this would increase the number of available maps quickly, cheaply, and most importantly, quickly.

I do beleive that is exactly what they intend to do "when" the Art Asset Collection" is complete. Hopefully that will be completed soon^tm

[Voidcrafter]

Almond Brown, on 21 August 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

I do beleive that is exactly what they intend to do "when" the Art Asset Collection" is complete. Hopefully that will be completed soon^tm

I really hope you're right fella.
I, very, very sadly missed MW:LL but I've been watching lots of videos lately and I am regreting more and more about that...
Those maps, gameplay, all... We need exactly this.

[Mister Blastman]

This map was made by someone for free. It even has stuff like destructible trees. Look how beautiful it is.