1
Map Contest
Started by EasyPickings, Apr 05 2015 09:29 PM
23 replies to this topic
#1
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 192 posts
Member
- LocationNew Zealand
Posted 05 April 2015 - 09:29 PM
What PGI needs to do is release a SDK for those who want to create their own maps for submission.
PGI could run a contest with MCs as the reward for the top 3 maps and then they would be able to put a lot more into the game.
This has been done before with a lot of other online games to great effect. I remember when Counter Strike was limited in the variations of maps it could offer, but then Valve opened it up to the community and started accepting fan maps for inclusion in the game. Now we have a huge choice of maps.
If you think this is a good idea, please leave a comment.
#2
-
-
- Mercenary
- 352 posts
Member
Posted 06 April 2015 - 01:04 AM
YES YES YES
It is painfully obvious that the easiest way for PGI to have content for their money-making game is to have nerds do it for them!
It is nice that they do play their game, they have a decent working knowledge of how to map and balance, at the least.
However, there is a rule on the internet that I follow:
"There's always a bigger nerd"- Qui Gon Jim, Star Trek V: Electric Boogaloo
Ok, jokes aside, MWO's fanbase has a LOT of die-hard BT fans. Some of those are big enough nerds that they have mapping experience, and even other useful experience and skills. And god knows ALL of them have enough ideas.
And PGI doesn't have to do a thing. Look at Valve? They've been on lunch break for years because their content, even money-making content is USER-GENERATED.
USE YOUR NERDS PGI, USE YOUR NERDS.
It is painfully obvious that the easiest way for PGI to have content for their money-making game is to have nerds do it for them!
It is nice that they do play their game, they have a decent working knowledge of how to map and balance, at the least.
However, there is a rule on the internet that I follow:
"There's always a bigger nerd"- Qui Gon Jim, Star Trek V: Electric Boogaloo
Ok, jokes aside, MWO's fanbase has a LOT of die-hard BT fans. Some of those are big enough nerds that they have mapping experience, and even other useful experience and skills. And god knows ALL of them have enough ideas.
And PGI doesn't have to do a thing. Look at Valve? They've been on lunch break for years because their content, even money-making content is USER-GENERATED.
USE YOUR NERDS PGI, USE YOUR NERDS.
#3
-
-
- 8,163 posts
Member
Posted 06 April 2015 - 01:45 AM
Sandersson Jankins, on 06 April 2015 - 01:04 AM, said:
And PGI doesn't have to do a thing.
That's not even close to the truth. It's a romantic look on the issue that is ignoring several facts.
Fact 1
User generated maps for the games of Valve are run on servers in control of the players. The user controling the servers weed out bad maps and add new ones when they come up. They constantly have to keep watch to not implement a map that is bad for one reason or another (graphical or gameplay usually, I'll list others in Fact 3). No user will ever control a PGI server. Even private matches do not allow access to server settings (or files) for very good reasons.
Fact 2
PGI would need to check every map entry for art assets that are modified or brought into them from the outside. They would need to check if the foreign art asset is actually new content created by the user who submitted the new map, or if it was imported from somewhere else. If they implement a map with a foreign art asset, they run the risk of being sued by the original creator, for using his work without approval.
They only way to remove that risk, is to release a closed map creator, that can only work with already existing map elements. This map creator needs to be programmed and patched constantly. They can't risk to implement maps with new content on the promise of its creator that he created it by himself.
Fact 3
As PGI needs to work with a closed map editor, the tools they can provide are probably far from being professional level. So every map entry needs to be checked for technical and performance problems. A map with a field with thousend or tens of thousends of beautiful but tiny flowers could look very well and might have a well thought through gameplay plan, but will perform horribly on most computers. There might be problems with collision detection or missing textures. Or maybe the map creator forgot to add starting positions for one or more mechs.
These are technical issues PGI needs to check for every single map entry. Possibly resulting in a change or not implementing a map at all.
Each single fact already is a lot of work. Add all of them together and you'll soon get a logistical nightmare.
Just look at the amount of complaints we already have for map collision problems. Maps created in house by PGI with their open toolset and testservers to run them on. Yet those problems still arise and sometimes massivly. Now imagine what would happen with a closed up map creator with no real option to test a map for such things or maybe even to access the point of the problem. And now imagine the complaints on the forum if those maps get implemented but not updated, because the creator no longer has access to it and would need to send in an updated version based on hearsay. If he is able to make the update at all.
No, sorry, the idea might sound good, and that's the reason why it brought up every so often, but it is not nearly as easy as it sounds and it is most certainly not free for PGI. Not even close to it.
#4
-
-
- Mercenary
- 352 posts
Member
Posted 06 April 2015 - 03:05 AM
Egomane, on 06 April 2015 - 01:45 AM, said:
That's not even close to the truth. It's a romantic look on the issue that is ignoring several facts.
Fact 1
User generated maps for the games of Valve are run on servers in control of the players. The user controling the servers weed out bad maps and add new ones when they come up. They constantly have to keep watch to not implement a map that is bad for one reason or another (graphical or gameplay usually, I'll list others in Fact 3). No user will ever control a PGI server. Even private matches do not allow access to server settings (or files) for very good reasons.
Fact 2
PGI would need to check every map entry for art assets that are modified or brought into them from the outside. They would need to check if the foreign art asset is actually new content created by the user who submitted the new map, or if it was imported from somewhere else. If they implement a map with a foreign art asset, they run the risk of being sued by the original creator, for using his work without approval.
They only way to remove that risk, is to release a closed map creator, that can only work with already existing map elements. This map creator needs to be programmed and patched constantly. They can't risk to implement maps with new content on the promise of its creator that he created it by himself.
Fact 3
As PGI needs to work with a closed map editor, the tools they can provide are probably far from being professional level. So every map entry needs to be checked for technical and performance problems. A map with a field with thousend or tens of thousends of beautiful but tiny flowers could look very well and might have a well thought through gameplay plan, but will perform horribly on most computers. There might be problems with collision detection or missing textures. Or maybe the map creator forgot to add starting positions for one or more mechs.
These are technical issues PGI needs to check for every single map entry. Possibly resulting in a change or not implementing a map at all.
Each single fact already is a lot of work. Add all of them together and you'll soon get a logistical nightmare.
Just look at the amount of complaints we already have for map collision problems. Maps created in house by PGI with their open toolset and testservers to run them on. Yet those problems still arise and sometimes massivly. Now imagine what would happen with a closed up map creator with no real option to test a map for such things or maybe even to access the point of the problem. And now imagine the complaints on the forum if those maps get implemented but not updated, because the creator no longer has access to it and would need to send in an updated version based on hearsay. If he is able to make the update at all.
No, sorry, the idea might sound good, and that's the reason why it brought up every so often, but it is not nearly as easy as it sounds and it is most certainly not free for PGI. Not even close to it.
Fact 1
User generated maps for the games of Valve are run on servers in control of the players. The user controling the servers weed out bad maps and add new ones when they come up. They constantly have to keep watch to not implement a map that is bad for one reason or another (graphical or gameplay usually, I'll list others in Fact 3). No user will ever control a PGI server. Even private matches do not allow access to server settings (or files) for very good reasons.
Fact 2
PGI would need to check every map entry for art assets that are modified or brought into them from the outside. They would need to check if the foreign art asset is actually new content created by the user who submitted the new map, or if it was imported from somewhere else. If they implement a map with a foreign art asset, they run the risk of being sued by the original creator, for using his work without approval.
They only way to remove that risk, is to release a closed map creator, that can only work with already existing map elements. This map creator needs to be programmed and patched constantly. They can't risk to implement maps with new content on the promise of its creator that he created it by himself.
Fact 3
As PGI needs to work with a closed map editor, the tools they can provide are probably far from being professional level. So every map entry needs to be checked for technical and performance problems. A map with a field with thousend or tens of thousends of beautiful but tiny flowers could look very well and might have a well thought through gameplay plan, but will perform horribly on most computers. There might be problems with collision detection or missing textures. Or maybe the map creator forgot to add starting positions for one or more mechs.
These are technical issues PGI needs to check for every single map entry. Possibly resulting in a change or not implementing a map at all.
Each single fact already is a lot of work. Add all of them together and you'll soon get a logistical nightmare.
Just look at the amount of complaints we already have for map collision problems. Maps created in house by PGI with their open toolset and testservers to run them on. Yet those problems still arise and sometimes massivly. Now imagine what would happen with a closed up map creator with no real option to test a map for such things or maybe even to access the point of the problem. And now imagine the complaints on the forum if those maps get implemented but not updated, because the creator no longer has access to it and would need to send in an updated version based on hearsay. If he is able to make the update at all.
No, sorry, the idea might sound good, and that's the reason why it brought up every so often, but it is not nearly as easy as it sounds and it is most certainly not free for PGI. Not even close to it.
Yes, I put it a bit simplistically and idealistically. Sorry about that.
I recognize that there IS a lot of work to go into it; much like nearly anything PGI could do.
However, I WILL maintain it is the easiest and most cost-effective method for generating content. I've played far too many games with DIEHARD fanbases, alongside casual and "weekend-warriors". I've seen too many amazing things from community members; hell, a lot of guides should be implemented into the UI as well.
So, you're really quite right, but I must disagree with you in the end. I'd explain why more if I wasn't JUST leaving third-shift work. I'm sure I'll come back to this later
Edit: Got one thing. Your third point seems moot to me- I think you underestimate just how thorough certain people in the community will be to test their maps. The first and second are VERY valid points....especially the one with re-used assets. That's a big problem with user-generated content now, and I'm sure BT fans all know about the wonderful Harmony Gold situation....
Eh, maybe for certain reasons this game is one out of many that can't take full advantage of my dream. I'll still support it though
Edited by Sandersson Jankins, 06 April 2015 - 03:07 AM.
#5
-
-
- Civil Servant
- 6,558 posts
Member
- LocationUSA
Posted 06 April 2015 - 03:43 AM
Egomane, on 06 April 2015 - 01:45 AM, said:
That's not even close to the truth. It's a romantic look on the issue that is ignoring several facts.
Fact 1
User generated maps for the games of Valve are run on servers in control of the players. The user controling the servers weed out bad maps and add new ones when they come up. They constantly have to keep watch to not implement a map that is bad for one reason or another (graphical or gameplay usually, I'll list others in Fact 3). No user will ever control a PGI server. Even private matches do not allow access to server settings (or files) for very good reasons.
Fact 2
PGI would need to check every map entry for art assets that are modified or brought into them from the outside. They would need to check if the foreign art asset is actually new content created by the user who submitted the new map, or if it was imported from somewhere else. If they implement a map with a foreign art asset, they run the risk of being sued by the original creator, for using his work without approval.
They only way to remove that risk, is to release a closed map creator, that can only work with already existing map elements. This map creator needs to be programmed and patched constantly. They can't risk to implement maps with new content on the promise of its creator that he created it by himself.
Fact 3
As PGI needs to work with a closed map editor, the tools they can provide are probably far from being professional level. So every map entry needs to be checked for technical and performance problems. A map with a field with thousend or tens of thousends of beautiful but tiny flowers could look very well and might have a well thought through gameplay plan, but will perform horribly on most computers. There might be problems with collision detection or missing textures. Or maybe the map creator forgot to add starting positions for one or more mechs.
These are technical issues PGI needs to check for every single map entry. Possibly resulting in a change or not implementing a map at all.
Each single fact already is a lot of work. Add all of them together and you'll soon get a logistical nightmare.
Just look at the amount of complaints we already have for map collision problems. Maps created in house by PGI with their open toolset and testservers to run them on. Yet those problems still arise and sometimes massivly. Now imagine what would happen with a closed up map creator with no real option to test a map for such things or maybe even to access the point of the problem. And now imagine the complaints on the forum if those maps get implemented but not updated, because the creator no longer has access to it and would need to send in an updated version based on hearsay. If he is able to make the update at all.
No, sorry, the idea might sound good, and that's the reason why it brought up every so often, but it is not nearly as easy as it sounds and it is most certainly not free for PGI. Not even close to it.
Fact 1
User generated maps for the games of Valve are run on servers in control of the players. The user controling the servers weed out bad maps and add new ones when they come up. They constantly have to keep watch to not implement a map that is bad for one reason or another (graphical or gameplay usually, I'll list others in Fact 3). No user will ever control a PGI server. Even private matches do not allow access to server settings (or files) for very good reasons.
Fact 2
PGI would need to check every map entry for art assets that are modified or brought into them from the outside. They would need to check if the foreign art asset is actually new content created by the user who submitted the new map, or if it was imported from somewhere else. If they implement a map with a foreign art asset, they run the risk of being sued by the original creator, for using his work without approval.
They only way to remove that risk, is to release a closed map creator, that can only work with already existing map elements. This map creator needs to be programmed and patched constantly. They can't risk to implement maps with new content on the promise of its creator that he created it by himself.
Fact 3
As PGI needs to work with a closed map editor, the tools they can provide are probably far from being professional level. So every map entry needs to be checked for technical and performance problems. A map with a field with thousend or tens of thousends of beautiful but tiny flowers could look very well and might have a well thought through gameplay plan, but will perform horribly on most computers. There might be problems with collision detection or missing textures. Or maybe the map creator forgot to add starting positions for one or more mechs.
These are technical issues PGI needs to check for every single map entry. Possibly resulting in a change or not implementing a map at all.
Each single fact already is a lot of work. Add all of them together and you'll soon get a logistical nightmare.
Just look at the amount of complaints we already have for map collision problems. Maps created in house by PGI with their open toolset and testservers to run them on. Yet those problems still arise and sometimes massivly. Now imagine what would happen with a closed up map creator with no real option to test a map for such things or maybe even to access the point of the problem. And now imagine the complaints on the forum if those maps get implemented but not updated, because the creator no longer has access to it and would need to send in an updated version based on hearsay. If he is able to make the update at all.
No, sorry, the idea might sound good, and that's the reason why it brought up every so often, but it is not nearly as easy as it sounds and it is most certainly not free for PGI. Not even close to it.
You make it sound like nerds don't have the time to put hours upon hours into logistics. If they want PGI to use their map, they realise they have to:
1. have a good design from a gameplay standpoint
2. use PGI assets or modified PGI assets (only recoloured, most likely)
3. not break computers trying to run the map
4. test for collision issues themselves (hint: all the collision issues are actual with the assets themselves, it doesn't matter much how you arrange them - if you find a collision issue with Building #510382 and fix it, it fixes instances of that asset on all maps in the game simultaneously. Feel free to correct me on this, but I've at least watched hours upon hours of Cry Engine tutorials and videos of people working on maps and assets because I find it very interesting)
All PGI needs to do is:
A: release a SDK that allows terrain editing, placing and scaling of PGI assets and ability to retexture assets.
B: allow some means for mapmakers to drive mechs on their map for testing.
C: put one person in charge of thinning the herd of submissions down to a manageable number that can be reviewed by proper PGI staff. Possibly even screen people before forking over the SDK itself.
Really hopeful, but less likely:
D: provide a private server that maps can be uploaded to and used for Private Matches.
Remember, nerds are a good thing; they're not all clueless saps slapping things randomly around a map. Some of them have made maps for other games in the past, so they know what to expect.
Edited by Tarogato, 06 April 2015 - 03:46 AM.
#6
-
-
- 8,163 posts
Member
Posted 06 April 2015 - 04:18 AM
Sandersson Jankins, on 06 April 2015 - 03:05 AM, said:
Edit: Got one thing. Your third point seems moot to me- I think you underestimate just how thorough certain people in the community will be to test their maps. The first and second are VERY valid points....especially the one with re-used assets. That's a big problem with user-generated content now, and I'm sure BT fans all know about the wonderful Harmony Gold situation....
Eh, maybe for certain reasons this game is one out of many that can't take full advantage of my dream. I'll still support it though
Eh, maybe for certain reasons this game is one out of many that can't take full advantage of my dream. I'll still support it though
Tarogato, on 06 April 2015 - 03:43 AM, said:
You make it sound like nerds don't have the time to put hours upon hours into logistics.
[...]
Remember, nerds are a good thing; they're not all clueless saps slapping things randomly around a map. Some of them have made maps for other games in the past, so they know what to expect.
[...]
Remember, nerds are a good thing; they're not all clueless saps slapping things randomly around a map. Some of them have made maps for other games in the past, so they know what to expect.
I agree on those parts completly. I only need to look into the mirror to see it myself day by day.
But as often as this topic is brought up, the workload still needed from PGIs side is often massivly underestimated.
The work is not one sided with those who want to create new maps. If that where the case I wouldn't enter these suggestion threads and play advocatus diaboli. I'd be happy if we had more maps. I'd be happy if we had more community involvement with creating them. I'm just realistic enough to see the problems that come with it. We need a solution for those problems before we can start talking about the rest.
I'll adress the rest of Tarogatos post now...
Tarogato, on 06 April 2015 - 03:43 AM, said:
If they want PGI to use their map, they realise they have to:
1. have a good design from a gameplay standpoint
1. have a good design from a gameplay standpoint
Absolutly! But to guarantee those we need rules that define some of those design elements. Otherwise everyone will have their own opinion of what is good and what is bad. We already have plenty deiscussion an the current maps because the playerbase disagrees on their gameplay design. Note: I like all the current non-CW maps.
Tarogato, on 06 April 2015 - 03:43 AM, said:
2. use PGI assets or modified PGI assets (only recoloured, most likely)
I already mentioned it and I am glad you agree.
Tarogato, on 06 April 2015 - 03:43 AM, said:
3. not break computers trying to run the map
How do you define that? Not everyone has the same system at home or his own private test environment to see how a mps works on various computer systems. This is one of those cases where we need precise numbers to work with.
Tarogato, on 06 April 2015 - 03:43 AM, said:
4. test for collision issues themselves (hint: all the collision issues are actual with the assets themselves, it doesn't matter much how you arrange them - if you find a collision issue with Building #510382 and fix it, it fixes instances of that asset on all maps in the game simultaneously. Feel free to correct me on this, but I've at least watched hours upon hours of Cry Engine tutorials and videos of people working on maps and assets because I find it very interesting)
How are they supposed to do that? Being able to load the map into the game for the training grounds will need more then a single adjustment to the game client. This is already work PGI has to do.
And not all collision issues are easy to fix. We have plenty of identical tourmaline crystals on Tourmaline Desert, yet on some we have a problem with ghost walls and on others we don't. Some things are coding issues and we shouldn't give a map editor this functionality, as someone will find a way to circumvent other editor limitations this way.
Tarogato, on 06 April 2015 - 03:43 AM, said:
All PGI needs to do is:
A: release a SDK that allows terrain editing, placing and scaling of PGI assets and ability to retexture assets.
A: release a SDK that allows terrain editing, placing and scaling of PGI assets and ability to retexture assets.
Which already is quite a lot of work. Don't underestimate this task.
Tarogato, on 06 April 2015 - 03:43 AM, said:
B: allow some means for mapmakers to drive mechs on their map for testing.
See above!
Tarogato, on 06 April 2015 - 03:43 AM, said:
C: put one person in charge of thinning the herd of submissions down to a manageable number that can be reviewed by proper PGI staff. Possibly even screen people before forking over the SDK itself.
One person won't be enough. At least not in the beginning. He can't test all the maps, he will recieve. One person alone would at best be able to glance over it shortly.
How long do we have Bog? Yet some longtime players are still surprised when they notice the wrecked and plant covered Atlas wreckage on the map.
You are again underestimating PGIs need for involvement and workload here.
Tarogato, on 06 April 2015 - 03:43 AM, said:
Really hopeful, but less likely:
D: provide a private server that maps can be uploaded to and used for Private Matches.
D: provide a private server that maps can be uploaded to and used for Private Matches.
This will probably never happen, with a closed system like MWO.
Again, I'm all for more community involvement and community created content. I just don't see it becoming a reality in such a way anytime soon.
#7
-
-
- Civil Servant
- 6,558 posts
Member
- LocationUSA
Posted 06 April 2015 - 05:38 AM
Egomane, on 06 April 2015 - 04:18 AM, said:
<good stuff>
I do realise that it's no small feat, however I also don't think it would be an insurmountable challenge. I just think it would behoove the folks at PGI to consider the option sooner better than later. The earlier something like this is set into motion, the more the community can contribute and start to bear the load in the long run.
#8
-
-
- Bad Company
- 3,663 posts
Member
- LocationStill in closed beta
Posted 06 April 2015 - 05:54 AM
Egomane, on 06 April 2015 - 01:45 AM, said:
That's not even close to the truth. It's a romantic look on the issue that is ignoring several facts.
Fact 1
User generated maps for the games of Valve are run on servers in control of the players. The user controling the servers weed out bad maps and add new ones when they come up. They constantly have to keep watch to not implement a map that is bad for one reason or another (graphical or gameplay usually, I'll list others in Fact 3). No user will ever control a PGI server. Even private matches do not allow access to server settings (or files) for very good reasons.
Fact 1
User generated maps for the games of Valve are run on servers in control of the players. The user controling the servers weed out bad maps and add new ones when they come up. They constantly have to keep watch to not implement a map that is bad for one reason or another (graphical or gameplay usually, I'll list others in Fact 3). No user will ever control a PGI server. Even private matches do not allow access to server settings (or files) for very good reasons.
Incorrect.
CS:GO, with one of the bigger player creation community of the valve games (bigger in terms of things that arent absolute ****, IE, Garry's Mod duplications) runs with Valve's permission. That is, Valve has an official, competetive Matchmaking queue. Should a item skin, map, or anything of the like be submitted to valve, it must first get enough community votes to be implemented (thousands of "thumbs ups") then valve itself looks over the submission, checking if it is up to par. At that point, it is added to the official map roster. I believe the map "Mirage" was actually a fan made map.
#9
-
-
- 8,163 posts
Member
Posted 06 April 2015 - 06:54 AM
Burktross, on 06 April 2015 - 05:54 AM, said:
Incorrect.
Ok! So they implemented Maps in their official queue. How did that work in detail?
If my Fact 1 is incorrect, like you claim, how was the map rated by the community, if the map wasn't available for them to play it on their own private servers? Prominency, speculation, simple screenshots?
How long did Valve need to implement the map after announcing it as a valid candidate? Did they maybe evaluate all the things I brought up, outside of the player rating, in the background without informing the community in the first place?
How much freedom does the map creator tool for GS:GO allow? Can foreign content be implemented freely? How complex are those maps. Is there more to them then simple tunnels, ramps and building, like it was with the original CS? Is there freely elevated and formed terrain?
How do those "official servers" function? Are they just a corporate owned private instance or is there more to it?
I'm pretty sure I have plenty more questions, but for now those are the ones that immediatly jumped into my mind.
#10
-
-
- Bad Company
- 3,663 posts
Member
- LocationStill in closed beta
Posted 06 April 2015 - 07:26 AM
Egomane, on 06 April 2015 - 06:54 AM, said:
Ok! So they implemented Maps in their official queue. How did that work in detail?
If my Fact 1 is incorrect, like you claim, how was the map rated by the community, if the map wasn't available for them to play it on their own private servers? Prominency, speculation, simple screenshots?
If my Fact 1 is incorrect, like you claim, how was the map rated by the community, if the map wasn't available for them to play it on their own private servers? Prominency, speculation, simple screenshots?
Disclaimer: Competitive simply refers to the official matchmaking queue run by Valve, not any elitism or something like that.
To my understanding, the ones that become official are sent in via mapping competetion windows, and there's some sort of exhibitionary window for the maps-- I wasn't much into CS:GO at that time, so I'm fuzzy with the parameters. Any custom maps hosted are not part of the "main game" per say. The main game being the competitive matchmaking queue.
Egomane, on 06 April 2015 - 06:54 AM, said:
How long did Valve need to implement the map after announcing it as a valid candidate? Did they maybe evaluate all the things I brought up, outside of the player rating, in the background without informing the community in the first place?
I'd imagine that all technical concerns are brought up with the map creator themselves before even being considered an option for voting at all.
Egomane, on 06 April 2015 - 06:54 AM, said:
How do those "official servers" function? Are they just a corporate owned private instance or is there more to it?
There is something called a competitive queue. They work much like our matchmaking here, except with a better version of ELO. There are third party hosters for competitive, however, the difference between a third party and official server in all aspects except ping is nonexistant. All competitive servers run to the same exact standards in both map selection and game rules alike, lest they be exempt from the matchmaking pool.
Egomane, on 06 April 2015 - 06:54 AM, said:
How much freedom does the map creator tool for GS:GO allow? Can foreign content be implemented freely? How complex are those maps. Is there more to them then simple tunnels, ramps and building, like it was with the original CS? Is there freely elevated and formed terrain?
Now, as a mapper, this I can answer with absolute certainty.
Valve gives users the exact same mapping resources as they use themselves, meaning that any map valve has made could be made by users. It also has support for player created static entities, or as the source engine calls them, "props."
Here is a screenshot of what you're given.
You can even decompile official maps and edit them in Hammer.
#11
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 192 posts
Member
- LocationNew Zealand
Posted 06 April 2015 - 11:30 AM
I do realise that it is a bit of work for PGI to go through all of the maps, but would that be more work than creating them?
From an efficiency point of view, how much salary does a tester get v.s. a 3D animator/game designer? My guess is probably a lot less. PGI could afford many more testers than designers.
The point is that this might be worth a try. And, with the rumours of MWO possibly being available on Steam in the future, the expanded fan-base could create all the map content PGI desires.
(Apologies to the PGI designers that I've just pissed off in this post. Only respect for you here.)
From an efficiency point of view, how much salary does a tester get v.s. a 3D animator/game designer? My guess is probably a lot less. PGI could afford many more testers than designers.
The point is that this might be worth a try. And, with the rumours of MWO possibly being available on Steam in the future, the expanded fan-base could create all the map content PGI desires.
(Apologies to the PGI designers that I've just pissed off in this post. Only respect for you here.)
#12
-
-
- 8,163 posts
Member
Posted 06 April 2015 - 12:36 PM
EasyPickings, on 06 April 2015 - 11:30 AM, said:
I do realise that it is a bit of work for PGI to go through all of the maps, but would that be more work than creating them?
Not considerably less, no!
EasyPickings, on 06 April 2015 - 11:30 AM, said:
From an efficiency point of view, how much salary does a tester get v.s. a 3D animator/game designer? My guess is probably a lot less. PGI could afford many more testers than designers.
It needs to be run through the designers as well, as it needs to meet minimum design criteria to be considered a viable map. They can't just look at it, say "this looks fine, lets test it a bit" and then make it available to the community.
Also a designer who created a map in the team, can inform the testers about the bugs he already knows about and that they can ignore because he is working on them. They have no such information on user generated maps and for that reason would probably need to test it more.
And don't forget the developer time, that is needed to keep the map creation tool up to date or who has to develop it in the first place.
All those things cost money and they add up.
EasyPickings, on 06 April 2015 - 11:30 AM, said:
The point is that this might be worth a try. And, with the rumours of MWO possibly being available on Steam in the future, the expanded fan-base could create all the map content PGI desires.
(Apologies to the PGI designers that I've just pissed off in this post. Only respect for you here.)
(Apologies to the PGI designers that I've just pissed off in this post. Only respect for you here.)
It may be worth a try once the real problems have been solved. For example the new player experience, at least in the form of more and better ingame tutorials. Or the completion of CW instead of leaving it in the half backed state it is currently in. The implementation of a hopefully better mechlab and hangar.
Afterwards, if there is free developer time to create and maintain a map creation tool, I'd like to see it as well. I'd welcome it with open arms.
#14
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 192 posts
Member
- LocationNew Zealand
Posted 06 April 2015 - 10:02 PM
It looks like this might be worth exploring in the future, so please keep this idea alive, if on hold, until it's feasible to accomplish.
Thanks to all who have put their thoughts into this.
Thanks to all who have put their thoughts into this.
#15
-
-
- 49 posts
Member
Posted 09 April 2015 - 08:34 PM
No, modding? Are you nuts?! PGI has to have a monopoly on the entire player economy and that includes maps and mods. I imagine that working with the current engine to make a map is not easy. See all the stuck spots in the current maps? Imagine if you played a player map and found it worse, stuck everywhere!
Not to mention the maps need to make the player economy a grind unless you pay. What if there was a simple arena (just one quad: A1!!) bash map for quick $$$$. C-bills. Uh uh. Once they unlease the source, then comes game hacking, pirate game servers, player economy hacks....
Not to mention the maps need to make the player economy a grind unless you pay. What if there was a simple arena (just one quad: A1!!) bash map for quick $$$$. C-bills. Uh uh. Once they unlease the source, then comes game hacking, pirate game servers, player economy hacks....
#16
-
-
- Overlord
- 1,566 posts
Member
- LocationCanada
Posted 10 April 2015 - 12:25 AM
Greetings all,
Have read all the previous replies, those that think it's a good thing to have and allow for player created maps, and the responses for the resulting 'issues' this brings.
- This is not something that could easily be made available from PGI, they are still building there 'Library' of assists, modifying the file location systems, implementing and introducing additional Dx9, Dx11 code and effects. All effecting current and future materials and game elements. They have a rather small team that works on maps and it's effected code, creating a map editor may be far beyond the resources any of the PGI Dev.'s have available now. (they have never stated there would 'eventually' be one, far too many issues with game code 'being out there' and legal concerns.)
On another sidebar;
I've watched and seen the 'sometimes unbelievable good' maps that were created for MW:LL using the Crisis objects and this same engine. Some of those taking a year or more to create and test to the point of 'allowing' it into the rotation.
- Now that being said, the materials found within the 'library' for that 'specific' game match very well with the BattleTech type of objects and resources, as well as having the ability to modify the base elements to 'fit' the new map theme.
- The quality of talent for these artists and designers, is from years of working within the CryEngine environment, and they have the understanding of what works and what may not. But this still doesn't limit the ideas for new and exciting locations or environments.
- The differences just in scale, between the elements, objects, terrain, and 'Mechs from that 'Player created' Mod and MWO are closer to what we should be seeing. (in my opinion) The draw distances and maps are larger, or appear that way. The use of dynamic environments and particle effects is sometimes 'breathtaking' in there presentation, leading to sometimes 'just stopping your 'Mech and saying "wow, that looks nice", and then getting back to the Battle'. (there are very rare moments in MWO when that would happen!)
For MWO, within the last year we've seen quite a few maps released. Now all these were specifically for CW, and they do need them. But as the designers and artists build more and this object 'Library' increases, as well as there knowledge within the Engine, we should see faster and more maps submitted. PGI has stated, they don't have an 'End Game' timeframe, the BattleTech franchise for them, is still around 3050-3052, many years of changes and material to yet build towards.
- PGI has mentioned they are working on Ai units, rigid body conversions to bring in 'destructible objects', building towards collision and Knockdown being reintroduced, and still making more maps. (that's a lot for this small team to be doing)
The Map creator and editor is a good idea, just may not be the correct time in this game development to 'spend the resources and manpower' on. Amazon has made a pretty big licensing deal with Crytek so that may speed up enhancements to the engine for MWO, or may not?
Just some ramblings,
9erRed
Have read all the previous replies, those that think it's a good thing to have and allow for player created maps, and the responses for the resulting 'issues' this brings.
- This is not something that could easily be made available from PGI, they are still building there 'Library' of assists, modifying the file location systems, implementing and introducing additional Dx9, Dx11 code and effects. All effecting current and future materials and game elements. They have a rather small team that works on maps and it's effected code, creating a map editor may be far beyond the resources any of the PGI Dev.'s have available now. (they have never stated there would 'eventually' be one, far too many issues with game code 'being out there' and legal concerns.)
On another sidebar;
I've watched and seen the 'sometimes unbelievable good' maps that were created for MW:LL using the Crisis objects and this same engine. Some of those taking a year or more to create and test to the point of 'allowing' it into the rotation.
- Now that being said, the materials found within the 'library' for that 'specific' game match very well with the BattleTech type of objects and resources, as well as having the ability to modify the base elements to 'fit' the new map theme.
- The quality of talent for these artists and designers, is from years of working within the CryEngine environment, and they have the understanding of what works and what may not. But this still doesn't limit the ideas for new and exciting locations or environments.
- The differences just in scale, between the elements, objects, terrain, and 'Mechs from that 'Player created' Mod and MWO are closer to what we should be seeing. (in my opinion) The draw distances and maps are larger, or appear that way. The use of dynamic environments and particle effects is sometimes 'breathtaking' in there presentation, leading to sometimes 'just stopping your 'Mech and saying "wow, that looks nice", and then getting back to the Battle'. (there are very rare moments in MWO when that would happen!)
For MWO, within the last year we've seen quite a few maps released. Now all these were specifically for CW, and they do need them. But as the designers and artists build more and this object 'Library' increases, as well as there knowledge within the Engine, we should see faster and more maps submitted. PGI has stated, they don't have an 'End Game' timeframe, the BattleTech franchise for them, is still around 3050-3052, many years of changes and material to yet build towards.
- PGI has mentioned they are working on Ai units, rigid body conversions to bring in 'destructible objects', building towards collision and Knockdown being reintroduced, and still making more maps. (that's a lot for this small team to be doing)
The Map creator and editor is a good idea, just may not be the correct time in this game development to 'spend the resources and manpower' on. Amazon has made a pretty big licensing deal with Crytek so that may speed up enhancements to the engine for MWO, or may not?
Just some ramblings,
9erRed
#17
-
-
- 49 posts
Member
Posted 10 April 2015 - 05:32 AM
9erRed, on 10 April 2015 - 12:25 AM, said:
Greetings all,
Have read all the previous replies, those that think it's a good thing to have and allow for player created maps, and the responses for the resulting 'issues' this brings.
- This is not something that could easily be made available from PGI, they are still building there 'Library' of assists, modifying the file location systems, implementing and introducing additional Dx9, Dx11 code and effects. All effecting current and future materials and game elements. They have a rather small team that works on maps and it's effected code, creating a map editor may be far beyond the resources any of the PGI Dev.'s have available now. (they have never stated there would 'eventually' be one, far too many issues with game code 'being out there' and legal concerns.)
On another sidebar;
I've watched and seen the 'sometimes unbelievable good' maps that were created for MW:LL using the Crisis objects and this same engine. Some of those taking a year or more to create and test to the point of 'allowing' it into the rotation.
- Now that being said, the materials found within the 'library' for that 'specific' game match very well with the BattleTech type of objects and resources, as well as having the ability to modify the base elements to 'fit' the new map theme.
- The quality of talent for these artists and designers, is from years of working within the CryEngine environment, and they have the understanding of what works and what may not. But this still doesn't limit the ideas for new and exciting locations or environments.
- The differences just in scale, between the elements, objects, terrain, and 'Mechs from that 'Player created' Mod and MWO are closer to what we should be seeing. (in my opinion) The draw distances and maps are larger, or appear that way. The use of dynamic environments and particle effects is sometimes 'breathtaking' in there presentation, leading to sometimes 'just stopping your 'Mech and saying "wow, that looks nice", and then getting back to the Battle'. (there are very rare moments in MWO when that would happen!)
For MWO, within the last year we've seen quite a few maps released. Now all these were specifically for CW, and they do need them. But as the designers and artists build more and this object 'Library' increases, as well as there knowledge within the Engine, we should see faster and more maps submitted. PGI has stated, they don't have an 'End Game' timeframe, the BattleTech franchise for them, is still around 3050-3052, many years of changes and material to yet build towards.
- PGI has mentioned they are working on Ai units, rigid body conversions to bring in 'destructible objects', building towards collision and Knockdown being reintroduced, and still making more maps. (that's a lot for this small team to be doing)
The Map creator and editor is a good idea, just may not be the correct time in this game development to 'spend the resources and manpower' on. Amazon has made a pretty big licensing deal with Crytek so that may speed up enhancements to the engine for MWO, or may not?
Just some ramblings,
9erRed
Have read all the previous replies, those that think it's a good thing to have and allow for player created maps, and the responses for the resulting 'issues' this brings.
- This is not something that could easily be made available from PGI, they are still building there 'Library' of assists, modifying the file location systems, implementing and introducing additional Dx9, Dx11 code and effects. All effecting current and future materials and game elements. They have a rather small team that works on maps and it's effected code, creating a map editor may be far beyond the resources any of the PGI Dev.'s have available now. (they have never stated there would 'eventually' be one, far too many issues with game code 'being out there' and legal concerns.)
On another sidebar;
I've watched and seen the 'sometimes unbelievable good' maps that were created for MW:LL using the Crisis objects and this same engine. Some of those taking a year or more to create and test to the point of 'allowing' it into the rotation.
- Now that being said, the materials found within the 'library' for that 'specific' game match very well with the BattleTech type of objects and resources, as well as having the ability to modify the base elements to 'fit' the new map theme.
- The quality of talent for these artists and designers, is from years of working within the CryEngine environment, and they have the understanding of what works and what may not. But this still doesn't limit the ideas for new and exciting locations or environments.
- The differences just in scale, between the elements, objects, terrain, and 'Mechs from that 'Player created' Mod and MWO are closer to what we should be seeing. (in my opinion) The draw distances and maps are larger, or appear that way. The use of dynamic environments and particle effects is sometimes 'breathtaking' in there presentation, leading to sometimes 'just stopping your 'Mech and saying "wow, that looks nice", and then getting back to the Battle'. (there are very rare moments in MWO when that would happen!)
For MWO, within the last year we've seen quite a few maps released. Now all these were specifically for CW, and they do need them. But as the designers and artists build more and this object 'Library' increases, as well as there knowledge within the Engine, we should see faster and more maps submitted. PGI has stated, they don't have an 'End Game' timeframe, the BattleTech franchise for them, is still around 3050-3052, many years of changes and material to yet build towards.
- PGI has mentioned they are working on Ai units, rigid body conversions to bring in 'destructible objects', building towards collision and Knockdown being reintroduced, and still making more maps. (that's a lot for this small team to be doing)
The Map creator and editor is a good idea, just may not be the correct time in this game development to 'spend the resources and manpower' on. Amazon has made a pretty big licensing deal with Crytek so that may speed up enhancements to the engine for MWO, or may not?
Just some ramblings,
9erRed
PGI has plenty of free interns they don't talk about who work just to break into the game industry from local colleges and university's game development programs... which there are plenty of in Vancouver. They are more eager than ever, considering a few studios closed down in Vancouver, reducing prospects. They could use these people for additional grunt work. They could build partnerships with some of the game design programs and recruit and train additional level developers to speed the process.
CryEngine is an older engine, its been out for some time... Its main attraction is the quality of rendering, despite the love relationship with the artists, it reduces the production pipeline to a crawl. Not that the game could be ported to UE4 or Unity3D easily, they are in to deep to port over. CryEngine really needs an update, as UE4 an Unity3D have made drastic improvements which accelerate game development.
Uses Havok physic's doesn't it? I'd assume so, even though CryEngine seems to use a "custom" physics engine. Which wouldn't make sense. Why reinvent the wheel? PhysX has made drastic improvements in the past few years.Maybe PhysX has better qualities for game networking?
more rambings.
Edited by Sir Wolfenx, 10 April 2015 - 05:32 AM.
#18
-
-
- 8,163 posts
Member
Posted 10 April 2015 - 06:09 AM
Sir Wolfenx, on 10 April 2015 - 05:32 AM, said:
Uses Havok physic's doesn't it? I'd assume so, even though CryEngine seems to use a "custom" physics engine. Which wouldn't make sense. Why reinvent the wheel? PhysX has made drastic improvements in the past few years.
It makes sense in so far that PhysX is vendor limited. Nvidia is not giving it away to anyone. They even go as far as to deactivate the function on their cards, if they detect a dedicated GPU from another company in a computer that has a Nvidia GPU for this. So if you want to simulate physics for all computers instead of just a select few, you need a physics engine that is not artificially hardware limited like PhysX.
Edited by Egomane, 10 April 2015 - 06:15 AM.
#19
-
-
- Bridesmaid
- 995 posts
Member
- Locationstraya
Posted 10 April 2015 - 06:28 AM
PGI cant really host user generated maps without legal hassles and dramas.
The only way to really do it is to release server program so users can do whatever they like on their own servers outside of PGI's responsibility.
Cant see them doing that though.
The only way to really do it is to release server program so users can do whatever they like on their own servers outside of PGI's responsibility.
Cant see them doing that though.
#20
-
-
- 49 posts
Member
Posted 10 April 2015 - 07:13 AM
Egomane, on 10 April 2015 - 06:09 AM, said:
It makes sense in so far that PhysX is vendor limited. Nvidia is not giving it away to anyone. They even go as far as to deactivate the function on their cards, if they detect a dedicated GPU from another company in a computer that has a Nvidia GPU for this. So if you want to simulate physics for all computers instead of just a select few, you need a physics engine that is not artificially hardware limited like PhysX.
Nah PhysX is used in Unity3D and Unity works on all systems, phones and consoles. PhysX is a free physics library, unlike Havok which is paid.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
