236 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

sounds like a pipedream to me

[Mister Blastman]

But dreaming is good! Sometimes the dreams even come true!

Updated the first post with a video at the end of some procedural worlds in realtime.

[KraftySOT]

Hopefully No Mans Sky kicks some of laziness out of the industry.

Theyll have a horde of DLCs by the time SC is anywhere near better than EVE.

[Milocinia]

The problem with procedurally generated maps is that they will always need to fill certain "criteria" as they're being generated.

When it comes to MWO we have to consider spawn points, cap points for conquest, potential pathing for lances and attack/defend points, routes for teammates to meet up, available cover... the variables are huge.

As much as we would like something like this, in an environment like MWO there are so many variables that have to be considered, it's only really possible to manually create the maps. Now I'm not saying the maps we have are perfect, I just can't see randomly generated maps being any better than what we have when it comes to gameplay experience.

Can you imagine the rage when 1 team gets a map that gives them a clear advantage over another?

I mean don't get me wrong I would love to see something like this but in the context of MWO, I really don't ever see it being possible.

[Elizander]

I'm down for some randomized maps. Randomly generated maps aren't 100% random so that it doesn't end up like crap. Could be a new mode at least during the testing phase.

[GroovYChickeN]

Is this possible? Absolutely. There are plenty examples of procedural generation especially for terrain (perlin noise anyone?). I just don't know if the idea of world generation at runtime would be do-able in CryEngine to the level of detail that we would want. Granted I know more about Unreal and Unity but CryEngine just doesn't seem well suited to me. You have to remember that No Man's Sky can do what it does because it was written specifically for that purpose. It is not a general use engine like CryEngine/Unreal/Unity/ect... and to get that working in CryEngine would probably be a rather large extension of the engine.

I think the better idea is to generate a semi-random layout of pre-designed sections into a sizable world. This would allow for less heavy handed generation process with a good amount of procedural feel. This would also make it much easier to code the logic so that levels are balanced. Also, it would allow PGI to ensure a level of QA for less effort than a full procedural design would. There are lots and lots of examples of this kind of level generation in lots of games.

[InspectorG]

Does it have to be this complicated?

Why not make blocks of 4 quadrants(like B3,B4,C3,C4) pre rendered/generated and the engine assembles the quads from a pool of assets and builds the maps pre-match?

Since they are square blocks they can rotate and the assets on them will be highly varied but built from scratch.

Or am i not making sense?

[Rhaythe]

KraftySOT, on 04 August 2015 - 12:40 PM, said:

http://www.no-mans-sky.com/

Your argument is invalid.

Apples and Orange-flavoring. No Man's Sky is not a competitive multiplayer, so balancing issues are on a much lighter gradient. It's also an unfinished project, which is a pretty big deal. And let's not forget its creator has a knack of abandoning his projects.

I've said it before; procedural multiplayer games are HARD, otherwise everyone would do them.

[Lyoto Machida]

mark v92, on 04 August 2015 - 11:49 AM, said:

lel they realy need to update that.

im running fx 8150 8-core, HD 7870 2gb, 16gb ram and i have to play on low/dx9 to get a sort of smooth framerate

Strangely enough, I was getting terrible framerate for the last few months. Then I remembered I had switched it to DX9, in hopes of getting more fps.

Switched back to DX11 on a whim and the game is suddenly playable again (30-50fps).

[Rhaythe]

mark v92, on 04 August 2015 - 11:49 AM, said:

lel they realy need to update that.

im running fx 8150 8-core, HD 7870 2gb, 16gb ram and i have to play on low/dx9 to get a sort of smooth framerate

I played on a pair of HD 6850's with an i7, and got a similar chuggy framerate. Updated to a GTX970, and it's buttery smooth now. I can't make it go under 60fps.

Might be time for an upgrade on the videocard side.

[Elizander]

Actually while we're talking about randomness...

• Give the new players a "Let me try a random trial mech" button.
  
• Players who have a huge stable of mechs get bored sometimes. Give an option for the game to select a random mech (that works) from their collection each drop (mechs without engines aren't selected or can be crossed out of the random list I guess). Keeps things fresh.

[DaZur]

You know... Thinking about this more.

While I think it might be a little grandiose to expect unique environment for every conceivable planet and I can appreciate the rich detail invested in our present map set (or soon to be map-set).

Maybe a good middle-grown solution would be to use procedural maps as filler/fluff maps interspersed with our higher-detailed maps?

I mean at the end of the day... Skirmish doesn't need to revolve around our marquee maps do they?

[Mister Blastman]

DaZur, on 04 August 2015 - 02:21 PM, said:

You know... Thinking about this more.

While I think it might be a little grandiose to expect unique environment for every conceivable planet and I can appreciate the rich detail invested in our present map set (or soon to be map-set).

Maybe a good middle-grown solution would be to use procedural maps as filler/fluff maps interspersed with our higher-detailed maps?

I mean at the end of the day... Skirmish doesn't need to revolve around our marquee maps do they?

Correct. The point behind procedurally generated maps is to put the player outside their comfort zone. It is to prevent "patterns" and "safe zones." It is to force the player to have a unique experience every single drop rather than deathballing to the same spots on the same maps, day in, day out.

[bad arcade kitty]

well, the problem with such maps it's that they will be horribly unbalanced, so a team which got a better spawn point will usually win, it will be like a lottery, they also probably will not be fun having too much open space or poor routing from one point to another etc; to make procedurally generated maps fun and balanced... a hard task

Zeusus, on 04 August 2015 - 11:26 AM, said:

Second won't work. I'm not waiting 20 minutes to DL/generate a map each match...

do you realize that you can begin to generate a map 20 minute before somebody asks it

PowerOfNapes, on 04 August 2015 - 11:28 AM, said:

This is the future

it's actually the past too

roguelikes traditionally use procedurally generated maps for re-playability since 80s

[pbiggz]

Made a thread about this a few weeks ago, im glad you agree with me OP, because I basically said the same thing.

This game needs maps, and if they wont let the community make them, then they need to use procedural generation to give us diverse environments wherein scouting is made necessary just to see whats on the map/locate the enemy/objective and each planet has dynamic environments that actually reflect the climate of said planet.

And the fact that the main dissenters in this thread are disagreeing because they think there's too much overhead gives me hope, because they're wrong, both technically and theoretically. They haven't backed up their arguments with actual facts because they don't know what they're talking about.

[DAYLEET]

bad arcade kitty, on 04 August 2015 - 02:27 PM, said:

well, the problem with such maps it's that they will be horribly unbalanced, so a team which got a better spawn point will usually win, it will be like a lottery, they also probably will not be fun having too much open space or poor routing from one point to another etc; to make procedurally generated maps fun and balanced... a hard task

Chaos is always fair but you can alleviate that with prebuild chunk. You could have river city with only the building block being random.

[pbiggz]

bad arcade kitty, on 04 August 2015 - 02:27 PM, said:

well, the problem with such maps it's that they will be horribly unbalanced, so a team which got a better spawn point will usually win, it will be like a lottery, they also probably will not be fun having too much open space or poor routing from one point to another etc; to make procedurally generated maps fun and balanced... a hard task



do you realize that you can begin to generate a map 20 minute before somebody asks it

1 team having an advantage based on terrain doesn't matter in a procedural (i.e. totally random) map, because in order for either team to win they have to move and scout and locate the other team, which also doesn't have any idea where anything or anyone is on the map. That's important. Both teams have no intel other than the basics. Temperature, gravity, time of day, etc. Both teams will find themselves moving in and out of defensible areas because thats what happens when you don't know the map.

Think about every time a new map hits the random queue, its a mess, everyone goes everywhere. often those games are the most interesting because of it, even if this condition only lasts a day or two, and everyone settles into a pattern. This wouldn't happen with random maps, because nobody would have time to settle into those patterns.

Edited by pbiggz, 04 August 2015 - 02:33 PM.

[Milocinia]

Mister Blastman, on 04 August 2015 - 02:25 PM, said:

Correct. The point behind procedurally generated maps is to put the player outside their comfort zone. It is to prevent "patterns" and "safe zones." It is to force the player to have a unique experience every single drop rather than deathballing to the same spots on the same maps, day in, day out.

But how can you do that whilst creating the same experience for both teams? Yeah we all know that our terrific matchmaker already makes things ridiculously one-sided but adding another (very wide) variable would be chaotic. Can you imagine if the lower ELO team got the bad map generation? More to the point, how could you guarantee that the lower ELO team got the better map? What criteria and software analysis could determine which side of the map is better for which team?

Would the generated maps be symmetrical to make it fair? Would there be some variable added to the higher ELO team to make their life more difficult?

As much as I would so love procedurally generated maps, in this game we just can't have it. Until we can invent an AI with the ability of Skynet to carefully craft the right maps, it's just never going to happen.

[zagibu]

InspectorG, on 04 August 2015 - 01:46 PM, said:

Does it have to be this complicated?

Why not make blocks of 4 quadrants(like B3,B4,C3,C4) pre rendered/generated and the engine assembles the quads from a pool of assets and builds the maps pre-match?

Since they are square blocks they can rotate and the assets on them will be highly varied but built from scratch.

Or am i not making sense?

What about the seams between the tiles? Do you want flat maps only?


Also, this talk about fairness is irrelevant. You can have both pre-made and procedurally generated maps in the same game. Want a fair experience? Play on the hand-made maps balanced for competitive play. Bored of that? Choose a procedurally generated map, which is potentially unbalanced, but random.

Edited by zagibu, 04 August 2015 - 02:44 PM.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

I think that'd be great for CW. Have it randomly generate the planets and then all PGI has to do is put things to attack/raid/etc..

They could add some escort missions and stuff to make the rest of the planet do something.

Plus you'd need scouts to find the enemy drop site, do smash and grabs on ammo depots, locate guerilla forces that are in hiding, and more.

Shame it won't happen.