100 replies to this topic

[MW Waldorf Statler]

In the Future it give very better PT Solutions as the Methods today and solutions for create Worlds


http://cgchan.com/store/scenecity/

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 25 October 2016 - 02:20 AM.

[Deathlike]

DAYLEET, on 24 October 2016 - 10:34 PM, said:

Dont matter, no side knows the map, every side plays on a never before seen maps with four respawn at best to "learn" the map.

It's true and not true at the same time.

When there is some level of procedural map generation, there are patterns. There are plenty of games that uses them (like Diablo) and fundamentally they are still variations that you would eventually "figure" out what things end up being as there is a certain level of predictability that comes with that.

Mind you, it's better than a map being static/fixed, but you can certainly figure out how a map behaves over time.

[cazidin]

Alright. Which of you raised this thread from the dead? Also. No. Procedural map generation is always worse than maps made by hand. If you think PGI's maps are bad now? Procedurally generated maps would be far, far worse.

[Rebas Kradd]

Appogee, on 24 October 2016 - 11:13 PM, said:

Guys guys guys.

It doesn't matter whether a procedurally-generated map is biased to one side or the other, because:

• war isn't fair

Can't use this justification in multiplayer games.

Appogee, on 24 October 2016 - 11:13 PM, said:

• the downside of imbalance is much less than the benefit of infinite variety of battlefield

You think that. A lot of other people won't. The cries of "imbalance" and "luck-of-the-spawn" would be endless.

Appogee, on 24 October 2016 - 11:13 PM, said:

• it creates a reason for scouting

You don't implement an entire new system of map design just to accomplish that one goal. And you can accomplish that goal through plenty of other means; PGI just isn't doing it.

Appogee, on 24 October 2016 - 11:13 PM, said:

• the advantage vs disadvantage would even out for everyone over time

And so would the need for scouting.

Appogee, on 24 October 2016 - 11:13 PM, said:

• in FP we'd feel like we were actually taking planets in a diverse galaxy

Won't matter. You have to know gamer behavior. This is a bad enough idea for player avatars NOT severely limited by speed. Throw Dire Wolves into this and we'll never hear the end of the complaints.

If you want PGI to speed up map production, tell them to lean more towards the relatively featureless maps that we grew up with on MW2/MW3/MW4. Gently rolling terrain to keep mech weapons balanced, and that's it. Far faster to produce, far easier to debug. Enough with the soaring mountains and exotic backgrounds that would never be seen on a planet where humans were actually settling. This...



...was just fine for all of us, partly because it was believable as a place humans would actually be fighting over.

[Chuck Jager]

I would like this If they have a set of preset roads and lanes that can be rotated amongst different sections that are then populated by more random elements with flags for too much or too little. The math for the flags and restricted elements could be tweaked accordingly and maybe used as a MM balance (only if pgi never admits to doing it).

I have found that when a new map is introduced much of the combat takes place in areas that is not OP, and we do not know it. DDay was one of the most organized invasions ever and look at how much was unexpected and went awry. The randomness would give the pugz a weapon they could possible use, because the groups could not expect to game positioning as easily. Groups would still have the advantadge, but it may not "feel" as much like a repeat whipping.

[kuma8877]

Without an example of procedural maps done in Cryengine already, this is a non starter whatever the benefits or drawbacks would be. The development time and cost would be astronomical and simply prohibitive.

[Deathlike]

kuma8877, on 25 October 2016 - 08:46 AM, said:

Without an example of procedural maps done in Cryengine already, this is a non starter whatever the benefits or drawbacks would be. The development time and cost would be astronomical and simply prohibitive.

Technically Star Citizen accomplished this (same engine as MWO in Cryengine 3), so it's clearly doable.

The question is the costs of hiring people do this... and this is something PGI isn't willing to invest in.

Edited by Deathlike, 25 October 2016 - 08:49 AM.

[kuma8877]

Cost prohibitive. Look at how huge the teams are at SC to get any of that to work. Anything is possible, but PGI has neither the existing staff or money to go up to that level.

And have we really seen it working in a fluid mp environment outside of their studios?

Edited by kuma8877, 25 October 2016 - 09:27 AM.

[LordNothing]

sure its possible, but not with this game engine, or this developer.

[DAYLEET]

Deathlike, on 25 October 2016 - 06:52 AM, said:

It's true and not true at the same time.

When there is some level of procedural map generation, there are patterns. There are plenty of games that uses them (like Diablo) and fundamentally they are still variations that you would eventually "figure" out what things end up being as there is a certain level of predictability that comes with that.

Mind you, it's better than a map being static/fixed, but you can certainly figure out how a map behaves over time.

Ive had the opposite experience with an fps than you with a rpg. But in the end it does not matter to me. One side can have the advantage sometimes and thats fair and still largely relies on how the people use the content in a quick manner in a chaotic environment.

However i think you are thinking about pure building block not true randomly generated. Even SimCity and civilisation were able to be randomly generated with rules to balance things out and still be entirely different every time.

[Tristan Winter]

[M T]

Procedural maps are all crap. You will always need major human intervention to get something decent.

Lets try it again in 20 years, perhaps then we can actually make it succeed.

But now we mention it, I'm pretty sure Polar and Terra(new) are getting close to 'random noise' by now.

Expect more junk maps to replace classics.

[Bilbo]

Deathlike, on 25 October 2016 - 08:49 AM, said:

Technically Star Citizen accomplished this (same engine as MWO in Cryengine 3), so it's clearly doable.

The question is the costs of hiring people do this... and this is something PGI isn't willing to invest in.

Did Star Citizen do this for PvP, or did they do it for eye candy planet surfaces that will never see anything resembling PvP?

[Deathlike]

Bilbo, on 25 October 2016 - 03:13 PM, said:

Did Star Citizen do this for PvP, or did they do it for eye candy planet surfaces that will never see anything resembling PvP?

I don't see how it matters whether it is for PvP or not.

Technically you can do this for PvE just as much as you can for PvP... the difference is whether or not you are capable of designing it (and it can be easy to screw up).

M T, on 25 October 2016 - 03:09 PM, said:

Procedural maps are all crap. You will always need major human intervention to get something decent.

Lets try it again in 20 years, perhaps then we can actually make it succeed.

But now we mention it, I'm pretty sure Polar and Terra(new) are getting close to 'random noise' by now.

Expect more junk maps to replace classics.

You actually have to take care in designing it. It's not like people are natural to making it... it's a puzzle that people have to create and make work. Traditional maps are OK, but they need to be designed well like everything else, and in many instances in MWO... this is not the case.

Edited by Deathlike, 25 October 2016 - 03:29 PM.

[Bilbo]

Deathlike, on 25 October 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

I don't see how it matters whether it is for PvP or not.

Technically you can do this for PvE just as much as you can for PvP... the difference is whether or not you are capable of designing it (and it can be easy to screw up).
...

See my first post in this two year old thread.

[Deathlike]

Bilbo, on 25 October 2016 - 03:34 PM, said:

See my first post in this two year old thread.

You can do it, but again, that would require lots of thorough and iterative testing.. something PGI has refused to do time and time again. They aren't even doing it on current maps (adjusting it or making it dynamic), and there's no way they would do it if it were procedural.

Edited by Deathlike, 25 October 2016 - 03:38 PM.

[Bilbo]

Deathlike, on 25 October 2016 - 03:38 PM, said:

You can do it, but again, that would require lots of thorough and iterative testing.. something PGI has refused to do time and time again. They aren't even doing it on current maps (adjusting it or making it dynamic), and there's no way they would do it if it were procedural.

I'm not even trying to be argumentative here, but I'd really like to know who has ever done it for an fps?

[Deathlike]

Bilbo, on 25 October 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

I'm not even trying to be argumentative here, but I'd really like to know who has ever done it for an fps?

Well, I'm not sure.

It would have to be something that's transcendent or something (MWO will not be that game, that's for sure), so if I had a better answer, I'd let you know.

[nehebkau]

Bilbo, on 23 September 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

The question is not whether it's possible. The question is whether or not the maps could be generated with spawn points that don't bias the outcome of the match.

However, that would be by random chance so you would just as often get a good spawn as a bad spawn and more likely get somewhere in the middle.

[Bilbo]

nehebkau, on 25 October 2016 - 04:22 PM, said:

However, that would be by random chance so you would just as often get a good spawn as a bad spawn and more likely get somewhere in the middle.

Would most be willing to wait the number of matches it takes to realize the aren't getting ****** on average? Best case... they complain about the maps instead of the matchmaker. The first of which can't be fixed, and the latter can't be adjusted to anyone's liking.