33 replies to this topic

[pbiggz]

Disclaimer: I don't expect PGI to ever successfully implement features like this, although it would be nice for them to impress me every once in a while.

Now on to the main topic.

Community Warfare started out really fun. Nobody was sure how the maps could be gamed so there was a lot of experimentation and funky tactics that forced both attackers and defenders to be flexible. However, as the player base became familiar with the maps, those tactics faded away. Units and pugs alike had found the best ways to exploit the maps to their advantage. This is to be expected. It's perfectly natural and not a problem in of itself, but the symptom of a greater problem.

We represent over 2000 planets with 6 maps, each following a relatively shallow cookie cutter design meant to arena balance what should be something closer to a MilSim. This will prove deadly to the game over time, we've already seen the numbers for CW go down dramatically, as entire factions just disappear due to lack of interest from their players.

(note, arena balanced maps are perfectly fine in the public queue, as those game modes are just glorified team death matches anyway, the focus of this thread is on CW)

There are ways to fix this problem however.

The first way is relatively simple: make a ton of maps. This has flaws though. First, the maps that are being made will all still follow the cookie cutter design. Jam your team through 2-3 gates by destroying generators, and then either farm the enemy team down or rush their gens. Beyond that, its simply too labour intensive. There's no way the team could make the number of maps required alone.

The second way is to allow the community to make a ton of maps FOR mwo. This is something iv advocated for a long time. Games with content creation tools tend to live ALOT longer than games without content creation tools. (just look at games like warcraft III, Age of Mythology/empires, gary's mod, counterstrike, etc.) The community generating maps would massively accelerate the rate of map making and increase the number of available maps radically. This also has draw backs however. Some sort of structure would need to be established to first verify the quality of the maps being submitted, then enter these maps into the rotation, and its unlikely that PGI will be willing to allow community created map content any time soon, as they seem to have a borderline violent opposition to it for reasons that are entirely beyond me.

The third way is to build a system that allows for procedural, or at least partially procedural map generation. A partially procedurally generated map could have the same spawn points and bases, but everything between them could be assembled from premade map "chunks". Terrain features designed to fit together and assembled randomly before the match begins. The degree of randomness could be variable however. You could have only parts of the map feature these random chunks, or you could have everything be random each drop right down to the spawn points and locations of objectives. The advantages of this method are that no two CW maps are alike. Each drop brings its own challenges, necessitating adaptable tactics, and a more even spread of mech types. Heavies and assaults to secure defensible areas once they are located, mediums to flank and do battle with the enemy, using terrain equally unknown to the enemy team to their advantage, and lights to scout out completely unknown drop zones (a big plus in my opinion, as recon is basically useless in a game where everyone knows everything about every map). The only drawback with this feature is its relative complexity. PGI would have to bite the bullet and change the way they approach map design as well as dramatically alter their backend to handle the new features. It's certainly the right thing to do, but we all know from experience that they don't always go for the right thing to do.

These are some ideas i've had to improve MWO's CW game mode. I'd love to see a mix of the second and third method. Procedurally generated maps in my opinion are what could save community warfare from oblivion, and player made content is what could launch the game from just-ok status to potentially being one of the greatest mechwarrior games to date. We have a large technically saavy player base and they WILL make pgi content FOR FREE, it just doesn't make sense NOT to take advantage of that motivation.

Edited by pbiggz, 22 June 2015 - 02:32 PM.

[AlphaToaster]

I like the idea of community maps. PGI needs to hold a community map making contest where users create maps and submit video walkthroughs for players to vote on. Top maps get added to the rotation after PGI cleans them up to their liking, and the players get to name it, and maybe some MC and a forum badge to show they've contributed directly to the game.

Now to condense these posts into tweets so they get read.....

[Peter2k]

On player created content

There was this idea of "trusted" players forming a council (collecting ideas and assessing them for PGI), that somehow grinded to a halt
Said council could review maps (other content?) and pass it along to PGI if they approve of the quality
Hell you could give out some MC for best 3 maps a month or so

Had some great ideas on the back of my head of some maps, map designs and what could be put into to make them different and fun

Wish Tina would at least like a thread if she thinks it's worth thinking about
You know as a small feedback

[V3tor]

The addition of more maps will revitalize the game beyond what words can really express. When you know a map so well that you can guess at the outcome of a map based on initial group movements (much more true in Public groups) the game really starts to lose the 'wow' factor or 'newness'. It makes playing on certain maps to be more of chore than a true enjoyable game.

More content would be greatly needed to secure the future of the game. Player made or procedural generated maps would absolutely astounding. Of course PGI would have to ensure that any maps can at least achieve their 'quality' criteria...

[Kin3ticX]

The free to plays I have participated in have never released mod or mapping tools. Its one of the bitter downsides to free to play.

There is also a significant cost to the dev to release a mapping tool. A lot of their tools are likely not user friendly and each map they make needs lots of tedious QA to work out glitches. Again, for them to package up their mapping into something that the community can pick up would be a huge cost.

There are also usually legal requirements and risks at play too. Perhaps their engine license restricts them and there are always risks that popular modders go apeshit and want ownership of their work.

Then you also have to consider the lack of a user owned server browser. Who decides which maps are good, who decides what maps go into rotation?

Edited by Kin3ticX, 22 June 2015 - 02:46 PM.

[pbiggz]

Kin3ticX, on 22 June 2015 - 02:34 PM, said:

The free to plays I have participated in have never released mod or mapping tools. Its one of the bitter downsides to free to play.

Its one of the downsides that really has no reason to be a downside. There's no reason I can see that PGI can't release some simple map making tools, maybe gate them with MC prices if thats what it takes. (EX: submitting a map costs x MC but only if the map is approved, meaning they wont be flooded with **** maps).

[V3tor]

Kin3ticX, on 22 June 2015 - 02:34 PM, said:

There is also a significant cost to the dev to release a mapping tool.

I think the issue that needs to be addressed with this comment is not the cost of getting the tool out to the public, but the cost of doing that versus the cost of generating the same number (even only considering a portion) of maps. For example, if it would cost PGI X$ to get a decent map generation tool out to the masses, but for the same amount of dollars they can get 2 maps done start to finish (just an example based of the time it seems to be taking to get maps out...). With that tool, the player base can then start to get maps out at much faster rate than PGI ever could, even if only one in ten are even considered as decent maps.

Ultimately, PGI has to continue creating new maps and editing existing maps to prevent the stagnation from increasing any more than it already has and providing more new content to even keep the shadow of a player base that it currently has. (As a side note, I Really want this game to continue)

Kin3ticX, on 22 June 2015 - 02:34 PM, said:

Then you also have to consider the lack of a user owned server browser. Who decides which maps are good, who decides what maps go into rotation?

This point is relatively moot, because we cannot even choose between 'their' maps. With a smaller focus on creating maps, a portion of the resources that would have been assigned to create maps could be re-assigned to vetting content that could be already sorted/voted by players as Peter2K mentioned.

Ultimately, the goal would be to get as much 'quality' content to the players as possible.

Kin3ticX, on 22 June 2015 - 02:34 PM, said:

There are also usually legal requirements and risks at play too. Perhaps their engine license restricts them and there are always risks that popular modders go apeshit and want ownership of their work.

If that really is the case, then I (and many others) would appreciate them simply stating that they cannot play made content due to licensing requirements rather than just saying NO as they have. I can appreciate that they could have their hands tied, and if that is the case, I would gain a very large amount of respect for them if they own up to it(assuming they are truthful...).

Edited by V3tor, 22 June 2015 - 04:17 PM.

[Vellron2005]

The base ideas in this thread are awesome, and I agree with all three.

I especially like the one with procedurally generated maps, wich will be all the rage as soon as No Man's sky hits retailers, but even though that particular feature would possibly not only save CW, but make MWO one of the top-notch games out there, it is, I fear, something that PGI simply will not do.

That would probably mean abandoning the cryengine, or changing things dramatically, and so far, PGI was not really partial to dramatic change for the better.

To bad, cose procedural generation would mean the possability to create planet-wide maps, and true Battletech planetary conquest..

[TWIAFU]

AlphaToaster, on 22 June 2015 - 10:22 AM, said:

Now to condense these posts into tweets so they get read.....

With some major debates going on in these forums, important debates, the lack of any real PGI interaction here is what ticks me off the most!

How in the Nine Hells can we give any meaningful feedback in 140 characters or less?!?!!?

They could at least post in some of the most active and important threads with a simple "Read by X" for starters.

[kesmai]

How dare you twiafu. This is blasphemy. Twitter and ngng is everything russ needs for feedback.

[TWIAFU]

kesmai, on 03 July 2015 - 04:46 AM, said:

How dare you twiafu. This is blasphemy. Twitter and ngng is everything russ needs for feedback.

Only blasphemy I know is that spread by Pants.

Embrace me Kes as your new savior and my gospel that is No Pants!

[nehebkau]

I was told that RUSS and the other people in charge want NO community involvement of this type. Don't get me wrong -- I think community involvement for map-making etc. would be good for the game. I can only surmise that someone(some people) at PGI is afraid to let go.

[Rebas Kradd]

You've diagnosed the problem correctly, but I'll tell you what will happen with your solutions.

For community-generated maps, for every 100 maps you get, about 60 will be original creations. The rest will be revamps of the existing maps - "Frozen City Ma Way", "Terra Therma That Doesn't Suck", etc. - that are basically a waste of both PGI's time and the community's.

Out of those 60, about 10 will be something approaching playable from an FPS standpoint. The rest will be creations of people who have no idea how mapmaking works and how their construction affects performance. You'll have your maps cluttered to the brim with soaring skyscrapers, convoluted terrain and geometry, and new assets with polygon ridiculousness all over the place - and they'll play like a sideshow on even the best rigs.

You'll also have wide-open, relatively empty maps from the tactically-minded group who are trying to create interesting gameplay choices but don't realize that large empty space actually WORSENS performance because the engine has to render more space. (This is why current maps have so much terrain - it's actually a performance trick intended to wall off parts of the map from the players' line of sight and thus relieve the engine of having to render them. Every quality Counterstrike map was just such a creation.)

So PGI will pick the ten somewhat workable maps and run them past their quality standards - i.e. balance, feasibility with current gamemodes, sufficient variety of terrain to allow brawlers in, art quality, all that - which will probably eliminate all but four maps. Then PGI will go over a technical pass, looking for those that save them time on stuck bugs, clippings, unoptimized assets and everything else, meaning more man-hours of polish and playtesting just to narrow it down to ONE map, done by the one guy in the community with actual experience.

Countless work by PGI just to arrive at the conclusion that there's exactly one guy in the community who actually knows what he's doing in the departments of art, balance, AND technical quality. And then PGI will have to trust him legally.

The problem with the third suggestion - procedurally generated - is that you get all kinds of unbalanced maps that skew gameplay to one side, prevent tactics, and disallow role warfare, as well as generating their own slew of stuck bugs and geometry issues. The novelty and freshness won't be worth the screaming from the community over balance and bugs. Tactics and balance require careful work to install in a map; it doesn't just happen randomly, anymore than a monkey on a keyboard will ever produce anything legible. Plus PGI would have to spend all kinds of time setting up the tools for that as well, which probably wouldn't be worth it.

The solution is #1: PGI needs to create maps themselves, and simply needs to find ways to speed up the process. I personally would prefer simpler, open maps with less assets and less convoluted terrain. That's how previous games did it, and that's how Living Legends does them.

I'm sorry to sound so harsh, but this does appear to be PGI's stance as well. Can we please stop assuming that they're just a******* and throwing out good ideas for no reason? The amount of backend work you so glibly mention is probably several months' worth.

(FWIW, I do agree that there are way too few maps to give CW any longevity. 2,000 is unrealistic. Six is slow death for the game while everyone gripes about Catapult geometry or whatf******ever.)

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 04 July 2015 - 11:00 AM.

[Trev Firestorm]

Rebas, on the point #3 you are wrong about all but the bugs. Unbalanced terrain /forces/ role warfare such as creating a need for true scouting (vs what we have now: stick a light up by the other gates) and makes for much more interesting gameplay vs the learn the map then do the same crap over and over. Sure one game might give one side an advantage but the next may be reversed and if done right you won't be seeing the same thing again anytime soon. (I'm assuming we're talking about live procedural vs PGI making/using a map generator and loading the results into a patch in which you end up with a small selection of potentially debugged but low quality maps) I agree that perfectly well balanced and high quality maps don't come randomly, tactics are another matter entirely.

I also think you underestimate the community slightly, surely theres atleast 3 competent people to make maps out here :-p

[Tywren]

Kin3ticX, on 22 June 2015 - 02:34 PM, said:

The free to plays I have participated in have never released mod or mapping tools. Its one of the bitter downsides to free to play.

I can name two off the top of my head, Team Fortress 2, and Zombie Panic Source.

Now as for why PGI doesn't want to give those tools to the player base, it's because once they're in the hands of the population at large, and nitwit can cheat program that lets the see targets through walls, track targets after dropping behind terrain, nullifying radar derp, ect.

[Kin3ticX]

Tywren, on 05 July 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

I can name two off the top of my head, Team Fortress 2, and Zombie Panic Source.

Now as for why PGI doesn't want to give those tools to the player base, it's because once they're in the hands of the population at large, and nitwit can cheat program that lets the see targets through walls, track targets after dropping behind terrain, nullifying radar derp, ect.

TF2 is a different kind of free to play where a lot of the items are novelty. The ones that involve intense grinding never have mod tools. This is because the first mod I will make is the everything unlocked mod.

[Tywren]

Kin3ticX, on 05 July 2015 - 12:42 PM, said:

TF2 is a different kind of free to play where a lot of the items are novelty. The ones that involve intense grinding never have mod tools. This is because the first mod I will make is the everything unlocked mod.

MWO has it's own share of novelty items (War Horns, and Hula Girls), but i get your point.

[Bulvar Jorgensson]

Has anyone ever used a modular wargame board for their minature based wargame. Each 2x2 square is matchable to any other 2x2 square, even rivers, roads and hills/mountains. Then once the terrain is placed then the gaming assets are placed on the board, buildings, walls, etc. Then sides are picked and off you game.

WHY oh Why does PGi not have this feature in this game. Coding must allow for connected coding of terrain and cover, i have watched a PGi video where the developer picked up a refinery clump and spawned it on the map 3 times and created a small refinary in 6 mouse clicks.

Each section on a mwo is a square essentially, even the edge pieces, so like putting a jigsaw together , start with the edges and fill in the middle.

Either this is too hard to impliment or as many players suspect about as high on the agenda as ghost heat fix.

So lets just be happy with pokiemon ( gotta get em all) mech warrior online.

Edited by Bulvar Jorgensson, 05 July 2015 - 02:27 PM.

[Tarogato]

If you think map making is so easy, go download the CryEngine Free SDK (hint: it's a free download) and play with it yourself.

PGI uses the CryEngine editor to make their maps. They use World Machine to tune and colour their terrain. While it's not incredibly sophisticated, it's all very open ended. I don't expect they could make a "map making kit" so to speak. The CryEngine SDK *is* their map making kit, and everybody has access to it. A better approach would be to release a procedure. Map makers would need to need to follow that procedure and hold themselves to the same standards that PGI holds themselves to. One instruction that could solve a lot of problems and is a no-brainer - no custom assets, only PGI assets allowed. Things like polycounts to be observed. I don't reckon it would honestly be that difficult.

One of the things I don't think would ever work is procedural generation. We can generate terrain procedurally in World Machine, CryEngine itself, or even Photoshop (or GIMP). But after that they need to be dressed up and adjusted. You couldn't just have an algorithm plot spawns and CW gates and generators - it all has to be done be hand. Not to mention that such maps simply aren't interesting until you litter them with assets properly, and they're an absolute mess if you try to automate the process. Maps have to be made by hand, there's no way around it, I'm afraid, unless you want to sink to some very low standards.

I would love to make maps. I've been playing around in CryEngine for weeks now and I've figured most things out by now. So this is my plea to PGI: tell us how we could produce community maps in a format that you can review them and try them out. Give us standards, give us instructions, give us a proper working assets library (instead of us manually ripping them out of the game files ourselves). Give us copies of the existing MWO maps so that we can open them up in Cry SDK ourselves and see how they're made so we can do similar things.

[Rebas Kradd]

Trev Firestorm, on 04 July 2015 - 08:39 PM, said:

Unbalanced terrain /forces/ role warfare such as creating a need for true scouting (vs what we have now: stick a light up by the other gates) and makes for much more interesting gameplay vs the learn the map then do the same crap over and over. Sure one game might give one side an advantage but the next may be reversed and if done right you won't be seeing the same thing again anytime soon.

I think you overestimate the community on that one. The community will absolutely lose their s*** over even one unbalanced map. And if you're talking about generating a new map every time someone drops, that's going to require hundreds of maps, immense download times, and huge download sizes. Not practical.

I agree that the unfamiliarity would provide an interesting dynamic, but not everyone sees it that way. It's bad practice for a developer to intentionally create imbalanced maps.