236 replies to this topic

[Rhaythe]

Raggedyman, on 06 August 2015 - 04:14 AM, said:

Agreed that maps add a refresh to game modes, and that if the mode is stale then maps themselves won't provide a long term fix.

Out of curiosity: what two modes would you remove and what would you replace them with?

My gut instinct is to drop assault and skirmish and keep conquest, but that's because conquest has more to do than the others. However, if you want a "basic" mode of shoot things, Skirmish is the best example. For the new player experience, I'd recommend keeping Skirmish, even if it's my least-favorite mode.

[Mister Blastman]

Raggedyman, on 06 August 2015 - 03:50 AM, said:

then randomisation can be really upsetting when you find out your toon is totally unsuitable for the round.

More upsetting than when you take a SRM+Small Laser 'mech and draw Alpine in the random map selector?

If anything random maps will make less meta mechs potentially more useful since nobody will know where the sniper nest is or the most advantageous positions are to utilize their longer range weapons. Brawlers will more easily be able to sneak up behind players because nobody will know the map.

I know folks like comfort, but soldiers on a modern battlefield or true Battletech warriors had to/have to accept that every time they go to battle, it will probably be in unfamiliar surroundings.

Relying on familiar maps is a crutch. There's a reason there are map compilations for older shooters like Duke Nukem 3D or Doom that number in the hundreds or even thousands. Players did and still do enjoy testing their abilities in unfamiliar environments.

[Almond Brown]

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

They also worked in Soldier of Fortune 2. Sometimes you get wonky result and i always loved the random chaos that can happens.

Yup, given how players QQ about the odd bump in the road now on Maps, random chaos would surely go over with a "thud".

That video was pretty and all but what use is all that fly over **** when only the Ships Pilot could see any of it while the Players/Pilots would be in their Mechs waiting to drop? Pretty good guess that Dropship Mech bays don't have any windows...

Then, how about a Building ffs. These worlds, most of them anyways, were inhabited and had **** on them, other than nothing, or some trees. Not seeing anything overly exciting save for wide open spaces that the Meta boys and girls would surely enjoy...

Edited by Almond Brown, 06 August 2015 - 06:58 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Almond Brown, on 06 August 2015 - 06:57 AM, said:

Yup, given how players QQ about the odd bump in the road now on Maps, random chaos would surely go over with a "thud".

That video was pretty and all but what use is all that fly over **** when only the Ships Pilot could see any of it while the Players/Pilots would be in their Mechs waiting to drop? Pretty good guess that Dropship Mech bays don't have any windows...

Then, how about a Building ffs. These worlds, most of them anyways, were inhabited and had **** on them, other than nothing, or some trees. Not seeing anything overly exciting save for wide open spaces that the Meta boys and girls would surely enjoy...

With the assets PGI has already developed--buildings, etc., it wouldn't be hard to weave them into the procedural matrix. If it draws a map with a city--or towns, in lieu of procedurally creating the geometry for every building, the engine would simply pick an asset (which would be subdivided in categories within a database so types go with each other--aesthetic is maintained) and have bounding limits so they don't overlap. This can all be handled within coding. So total cities can be plopped onto a map without much issue. You could even have the engine procedurally generate the streets and place tree/lightpost objects appropriately around it.

There are already completely procedural city generators out there that even do the geometry, too--though why bother when we have all the hard work PGI has put into creating the assets. Just plop them in, instead.

This was done with 100 lines of code:



It isn't perfect--not even close, it is a mess! The buildings touch, there are no streets--but as you can see with a little bit of simplicity, procedural generation can get started and from there you refine the code to shape it into what we would expect to see with some effort.

[DaZur]

As a parallel (not to side-track this one) as it's germane to the discussion...

PGI could very easily "flip" and or rotate their existing maps, thus multiplying their existing stable.

You would be surprised how flipping or rotating a map can actually manifest different tactical situations... We are creatures of habit and this is why Nascar'ing is such an unconscious outcome.

Add to that environmental influences (rain, snow, sandstorms, fog etc...) and sandbox becomes much..much bigger.

[Almond Brown]

Mister Blastman, on 04 August 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

stuff

Random maps would yield ultimate random variety.

100% agree. When the Procedurally generated Urban based Maps contain the same content level of the Maps we play on now, then I am in like flint. Can you screen caps a urban based Map, with a real city, or multiple cities on it for that metter, that was done procedurally? That would be cool to see.

Edited by Almond Brown, 06 August 2015 - 07:21 AM.

[Almond Brown]

DAYLEET, on 04 August 2015 - 11:50 AM, said:

That vid explains why the narrator might not like randomly generated SEED, he uses what randomly generated means and try to confine it within rules and purify it to fit HIS OWN needs. He also generalize game like fps and turned based Strategy and hack n slash into one.

He goes on to say odd things like "how many cover does one room need" and stuff like that. Thoughts like that don''t belong in randomly generated fps games. Sometimes it needs can have no cover and sometimes its a freakin maze of upturned desk, that's the whole point of randomly generated fps. People like the narrator, who wants many hard rules are the problem. Your gameplay experience must NOT be stucked within rules like that. The reasons why randomly generated games are fun are shot down by the Narrator(and other unbelievers) without a second thought to mold their own expectation or somethng that isnt randomly generated. Civ is also a bad example for fps, a true random Civ game could be impossible, fps don't work like that, i know because i played them.

The "Cover" rule would be the one rule that if absent for a game like MWO would be the end, even if it happened only rarely. Without "Cover" MWO would be a joke to play.

[Rhaythe]

Something that might be quicker to implement is a block-based generation system. Basically take a high number of pre-conceptualized "blocks" of terrain. Differing types, of course. Open terrain. Wooded. Rough. Water. Cover. City. Etc. Throw it into a seed generator that arranges the blocks pseudo-randomly while ensuring pathing can still be negotiated.

Downside is the "blocks" will get predictable, but their arrangement would not. So leaving the familiar city block in one 'map' takes you to an open field one time, then a water field the next.

In a sense, this almost illustrates the hex-based system the game was founded on, so this isn't a horrible though.

[Almond Brown]

pbiggz, on 04 August 2015 - 02:29 PM, said:

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.

And when you Link us to a fully functional Online Multiplayer game with 2 Teams of 12 per side that is using Procedural Mapping, then we can all go check it out. Until then, many of us do know exactly what we are talking about.

Please post your procedurally generated Online MP Game list in this thread soon so we can all enjoy.

P.S. One game with Stompy Robots included would be great too.

Edited by Almond Brown, 06 August 2015 - 07:51 AM.

[Rhaythe]

Almond Brown, on 06 August 2015 - 07:50 AM, said:

Please post your procedurally generated Online MP Game list in this thread soon so we can all enjoy.

I did that!

Rhaythe, on 04 August 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

If procedural generated multiplayer were easy, everyone would do it.

Here's an experiment. Go to Steam's procedural generated game list. Lots of games, right? Now click on "Multiplayer" filter.

11 games. And those that are there are... simple.

This isn't an easy topic.

[Rhaythe]

Worthy of note, Warframe does indeed use procedural generation in very much the manner I described above. Experienced players recognize rooms, but the arrangement is completely new every visit.

But again, co-op game only. Not versus.

[Almond Brown]

Mister Blastman, on 06 August 2015 - 07:05 AM, said:

With the assets PGI has already developed--buildings, etc., it wouldn't be hard to weave them into the procedural matrix. If it draws a map with a city--or towns, in lieu of procedurally creating the geometry for every building, the engine would simply pick an asset (which would be subdivided in categories within a database so types go with each other--aesthetic is maintained) and have bounding limits so they don't overlap. This can all be handled within coding. So total cities can be plopped onto a map without much issue. You could even have the engine procedurally generate the streets and place tree/lightpost objects appropriately around it.

There are already completely procedural city generators out there that even do the geometry, too--though why bother when we have all the hard work PGI has put into creating the assets. Just plop them in, instead.

This was done with 100 lines of code:



It isn't perfect--not even close, it is a mess! The buildings touch, there are no streets--but as you can see with a little bit of simplicity, procedural generation can get started and from there you refine the code to shape it into what we would expect to see with some effort.

Fair enough but what would be "expected" is absolute perfection, or QQ ensues. We see it now when a root stops a Mech ffs. Besides, MWO is not a exploration type game. So HUGE maps that even though they were spectacular would not really "enhance" the game play style as it was designed to be.

Although a gross waste of effort for the Dev, what we need is just 1 20km by 20km map be created and then set to Skirmish only. Teams start in opposite corners and opposite ends. Then we could see why SIZE does not always matter when the game play style would make the "finding" (scouting) then "engaging" (skirmish) then "routing out" those that ran (way way) off.

P.S. Winning every Match by killing more enemies than the enemy (a full 15 minute wait to succeed) would likely not be seen as a boon to gameplay. (imho)

Edited by Almond Brown, 06 August 2015 - 08:12 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Rhaythe, on 06 August 2015 - 07:54 AM, said:

I did that!

Went over that List... Some Platformers, some Turn based as well. Not sure very many meet the MP Online criteria very well. Which of those have you played with a Team, Online? Do you have a favorite?

[Rhaythe]

Almond Brown, on 06 August 2015 - 08:11 AM, said:

Went over that List... Some Platformers, some Turn based as well. Not sure very many meet the MP Online criteria very well. Which of those have you played with a Team, Online? Do you have a favorite?

Of course not. I posted that to illustrate the point of how difficult procedural multiplayer content is.

[Viges]

Just imagine the world full of invisible walls! So amazing

[Bosie]

Kristov Kerensky, on 04 August 2015 - 02:47 PM, said:

Ah, yes, because a single player game is the perfect example of what you can do with a multiplayer game! Oh, wait, no it's not, not even remotely the same, huh, go figure right?

It's a great system for single players games where balance doesn't matter, and with the cartoon graphics in NMS, clipping issues probably aren't really noticable, so it's not a big deal.

Multiplayer games, it's not a good system, it's why it isn't used very often, too many issues to justify using it.

LOTS of things sound great when you ain't got a clue how coding actually works, or how to balance maps for multiplayer use, that doesn't mean they ARE great however.

I've done some work using procedurals, it's fun, but the multiplayer issue really are just too much of a PITA to make them worthwhile overall. NMS looks interesting for people who want a game that's not multiplayer and has literally unlimited exploration ability, and who don't mind cartoon graphics, which really kills it for me, sad to say.

I'll leave this here:

https://www.elitedangerous.com/

[Kristov Kerensky]

Bosie, on 06 August 2015 - 08:48 AM, said:

I'll leave this here:

https://www.elitedangerous.com/

I happen to play E:D, and I'm fully aware of how they generate solar systems. I'm also aware that a solar system that is anywhere from 500Ls across to 500,000Ls is a FAR FAR cry from the maps needed for multiplayer FPS gaming on a planetary surface. BTW, same nick in E:D as here, in case anyone else plays, hit me up with a Friend request. And Frontier has acknowledged that this does create problems sometimes, happened to me last night, jumped into an unexplored system and found myself inside a star. 500k insurance cost, 800k cargo lost, almost 1m in bounties lost, NOT fun, not something I'm good with happening, but something I recognize WILL happen on occasion in E:D because there's no way to hand make the solar systems of the 400 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy.

And PvP in E:D is NOTHING like what you get in a FPS, it's space combat, it happens over thousands of km of area, there's no cover unless you happen to decide to fight in a planetary ring(think asteroid belt space fight scene), which is still nothing at all like FPS combat. It's kind of hard to mess up the combat in this situation, it's just so damn BIG and by it's very nature, wide open and uncluttered by anything, it's SPACE!

I've used procedure to generate the base map when I did map making, it's a great easy way to create new and unique terrains. I'd create a thousand or so before I'd end up with one that was actually usable however, since I was creating maps for Tribes 2, which means 2 teams, up to 32 per team, and I really needed to make sure everything was balanced. 1 out of 1,000 times. Luckily, I did this work on my own time, I wasn't being paid to create the maps I made, so the time spent wasn't a big deal. For a dev team to have to go through that many maps to find 1 worth using, I really don't see that happening, since each and every map has to be manually checked out ingame just to see if it's balanced ENOUGH to use as your terrain template.

Mr Blasterman wants to play E:D in Mechs, I don't blame him, that would be fun to me as well. Problem is, we're playing MWO, which is a PvP game, we're not part of the ComStar Explorer Corps off scouting for new worlds, so this isn't an actual good thing for the game, not even looking at all the issues procedure maps have when being used for a PvP FPS game in the first place, something he and others here TOTALLY gloss over because, it's COOL TO EXPLORE! It is, in a sandbox game where exploration is actually part of the game, which MWO is definitely NOT.

Some of us telling you this isn't a good idea, we DO have more than a little knowledge from watching some videos, we've done this stuff, we've used it, we know the upsides and downsides. Look at that list of Steam games, notice that none of them are FPS games, not a single one. FPS games using procedure maps are a rare thing, usually they use procedure to put stuff ON the map, not actually generate the map itself, and just doing that causes issues, I know, I've used that system myself, it can totally fubar the map and make it impossible to play on.

[CygnusX7]

Hey lets come up with every reason not to.. rather than every reason it should be done.

[Rhaythe]

CygnusX7, on 06 August 2015 - 10:22 AM, said:

Hey lets come up with every reason not to.. rather than every reason it should be done.

It won't be done because it's an insanely expensive front-loaded cost that PGI will not be able to recoup for quite some time in development. Good luck pitching that to shareholders. From a business perspective, the returns on this kind of development would be minimal. It's not something that can make money. Therefore, it's a bad business decision. That's just what it is.

We all agree that we would love for it to be done. That's not up for debate. But we have to be realistic here.

[Satan n stuff]

Mister Blastman, on 06 August 2015 - 07:05 AM, said:

With the assets PGI has already developed--buildings, etc., it wouldn't be hard to weave them into the procedural matrix. If it draws a map with a city--or towns, in lieu of procedurally creating the geometry for every building, the engine would simply pick an asset (which would be subdivided in categories within a database so types go with each other--aesthetic is maintained) and have bounding limits so they don't overlap. This can all be handled within coding. So total cities can be plopped onto a map without much issue. You could even have the engine procedurally generate the streets and place tree/lightpost objects appropriately around it.

There are already completely procedural city generators out there that even do the geometry, too--though why bother when we have all the hard work PGI has put into creating the assets. Just plop them in, instead.

This was done with 100 lines of code:



It isn't perfect--not even close, it is a mess! The buildings touch, there are no streets--but as you can see with a little bit of simplicity, procedural generation can get started and from there you refine the code to shape it into what we would expect to see with some effort.

He needed 100 lines to code that mess? Those are just randomly sized blocks with randomized positions, there's nothing even remotely intelligent about it. If you're calling that a city generator you really don't have a clue how much work would be needed to make that look believable.