20 replies to this topic

[Greyhart]

It occurs to me what they should be doing when creating a new map is make it 4 or 5 times bigger than the largest they have now.

Like they are making a map for one planet.

then they can mark out a dozen or more areas for game play maps. these areas could overlap with each other and that would still add to variety because things would be in different areas of the game map.

This could then be used to add a planet flavour to CW.

So just make one massive map and cut it up for game play

Edited by Greyhart, 23 January 2016 - 12:35 AM.

[MrMadguy]

Are you joking? I really love "game ruining fever" phenomena. Adequate people are fighting against trolls, who ask for some dumb things, that will ruin the game. But when all of a sudden developers listen to forum minority and do something towards ruining the game - this trolls start feeling their power and instantly start to ask for 10x even more dumb things. It's something like Blizzard, listening to forum whiners and removing flying from endgame, and this said whiners starting to ask for even more terrible things, like "remove ground mounts", "remove running - everybody should walk", etc.

Now it takes 5-7 minutes of ChatWarrior Online to start actually playing on Alpine Peaks and Polar Highlands. Even with 2-3 times bigger map it will already be possible, that time will run out before even starting to actually play the game. Some people for some reasons derive pleasure from ruining game for everyone else.

Edited by MrMadguy, 23 January 2016 - 12:49 AM.

[Greyhart]

did you even read the post.

you don't play on the entire map but on small parts of it

[MrMadguy]

What you are asking - is to use the same visual asset for several different maps. State your ideas clearly. "New maps should be 4-5 times larger, then existing ones", lol.

[Greyhart]

Well I thought "then they can mark out a dozen or more areas for game play maps. these areas could overlap with each other and that would still add to variety because things would be in different areas of the game map." was clear

Edited by Greyhart, 23 January 2016 - 01:24 AM.

[jjm1]

Maps should be different sizes.

small for city maps
medium for forest
large for open terrain

like they have done really

[MrMadguy]

Greyhart, on 23 January 2016 - 01:24 AM, said:

Well I thought "then they can mark out a dozen or more areas for game play maps. these areas could overlap with each other and that would still add to variety because things would be in different areas of the game map." was clear

Engine limitations, sorry. No dynamic loading stuff, like in MMOs and open world games. Game is made on CryEngine and each map will be separate one, even if it will look, like it overlaps with other. We don't need such a waste of resources.

[Omi_]

TL;DR: Cryengine. Any other method would require significant development for limited real benefit.

Maps that size would bleed into performance for technical/math precision reasons, unless PGI used some new way to load and rebase the world origin for each match. It's way simpler, technically best as well as most economical to just build maps with an appropriate size for the arena required.

[MrMadguy]

Yea, Polar Highlands already has almost 50% performance drop in comparison with old maps without any real benefit due to being so big. On my computer old maps hit V-Sync limit on Ultra, newer ones (with dropships) - 60FPS and at Polar Highlands FPS may drop to 40 at some spots.

Edited by MrMadguy, 23 January 2016 - 02:19 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

MrMadguy, on 23 January 2016 - 02:18 AM, said:

Yea, Polar Highlands already has almost 50% performance drop in comparison with old maps without any real benefit due to being so big. On my computer old maps hit V-Sync limit on Ultra, newer ones (with dropships) - 60FPS and at Polar Highlands FPS may drop to 40 at some spots.

No it doesn't the map runs fine. We get that you don't like it no need to continue being ********

[Omi_]

MrMadguy, on 23 January 2016 - 02:18 AM, said:

Yea, Polar Highlands already has almost 50% performance drop in comparison with old maps without any real benefit due to being so big. On my computer old maps hit V-Sync limit on Ultra, newer ones (with dropships) - 60FPS and at Polar Highlands FPS may drop to 40 at some spots.

I'm actually not talking about performance FYI, but that's probably a concern for many people, too. LOD and occlusion are pretty well handled in MWO, which counters this concern a great deal.

[Greyhart]

no idea about the engine. But when playing the only thing that would load up is the section of the map you were playing on not anything else.

the basic idea is that create a section of the planet and then it is cut up into smaller maps.

Then on CW if your fighting over a snow planet then it would be played on the snow map (again only the smaller bits on each game).

[Alistair Winter]

That would indeed be great, OP. It would also open up nicely for chained missions, which is something players have been asking for since forever. You see this in PVP matches in SW:TOR, for example. A mission to destroy an enemy capital ship is divided into different phases. Phase 1 is breaching the hull, phase 2 is disabling the weapons and phase 3 is destroying the engines, for example. Or something like that, it's ages since I played SW:TOR.

But in CW, you could have a series of 3 x 10 minute matches, taking place on different parts of the same map. And then make a mission tree to account for different results. For example:

• Match 1, invaders drop on the planet and win the first match, pushing into defender territory. Match 2, invaders take up defensive positions and win again, consolidating their position. Match 3, invaders attack the orbital cannon.
  
• Match 1, invaders drop on the planet and lose the first match, so they're stuck near the dropships. Match 2, invaders try to push through the enemy lines, but lose again. Match 3, the defenders are attacking the invader Overlord dropship, to stop the invasion.

You'd have 3 different stages with 2 different outcomes for each match. A draw counts as a victory for the defenders. 2x2x2 = 8 possible different sequences and arcs.

DV McKenna, on 23 January 2016 - 02:24 AM, said:

No it doesn't the map runs fine. We get that you don't like it no need to continue being ********

When confused by behavior like this, I like to click a person's forum profile and check if others have rated said person negatively in the past. And then I'll check to see if they have some kind of profile feed message about shooting teammates. Finally, maybe compare the number of likes with their number of posts.

If I sense there's a pattern, I won't try to educate them.

Generally speaking, of course.

[Greyhart]

yes exactly how cool would it be in CW to have the planet zoom in and show how far you are into the map. Better than counting boxes to tell where the next mission is at

[Narcissistic Martyr]

MrMadguy, on 23 January 2016 - 12:45 AM, said:

Are you joking? I really love "game ruining fever" phenomena. Adequate people are fighting against trolls, who ask for some dumb things, that will ruin the game. But when all of a sudden developers listen to forum minority and do something towards ruining the game - this trolls start feeling their power and instantly start to ask for 10x even more dumb things. It's something like Blizzard, listening to forum whiners and removing flying from endgame, and this said whiners starting to ask for even more terrible things, like "remove ground mounts", "remove running - everybody should walk", etc.

Now it takes 5-7 minutes of ChatWarrior Online to start actually playing on Alpine Peaks and Polar Highlands. Even with 2-3 times bigger map it will already be possible, that time will run out before even starting to actually play the game. Some people for some reasons derive pleasure from ruining game for everyone else.

Oh no! A map that actually has room for maneuvering and where scouting actually matters! It's almost like PGI is finally deciding this should be a battletech game with a shred of tactical nuance instead of a mech themed arena shooter. You know, the kind of game they promised the founders.

It's not there yet but... maybe just maybe it's finally heading in the right direction.

[vettie]

Many missing the point here, me thinks.
OP is basically asking that when they make a map, make it large and divide it up into several smaller maps.
Instead of 1 map every 4 to 6 months, we get 6 or 9 or 12. Liking slicing up a tray of brownies. some will be larger than others, but all will have different terrain albeit with parts of the maps the were next to when 'cut'. Not 1 huge map, several made from 1 large design. The idea has merit

[Greyhart]

Yes if say you created a map 4 times as big as a normal map and had a criteria that non of the maps taken from it could have more than 50% of any other map you'd be able to make 9 maps in total I think. That is of course assuming all the maps are the same dimensions, which they wouldn't be so could be more.

So i think they should create a planet map type and then you play on smaller maps that are taken from that map. then when dropping on CW you play that one map, rather than a sequence of unrelated maps. It would add immersion. You could add briefings to the CW drops giving briefly you current objective and then the ultimate objective and outlining the chain of missions that need to be completed.

Further you would then combine the production of quick play maps with faction maps and so save time and money. this is like killing 2 birds with one stone.

Edit

imagine you extended river city so that there was additional land to the north and south. then you could have 2 maps with river city in one map being to the south and in the other it being to the north. Same river city but different game entirely.

Edited by Greyhart, 25 January 2016 - 01:29 AM.

[Anjian]

It's useless to make that big a map for this game.

1. The game engine isn't very efficient and limits your graphics budget (polygons and textures). So you can't make that big of a map.
2. Even if you do make that big of a map, its not likely much of it will be utilized anyway due to the play mechanics.

[NextGame]

What I would do with polar (and any other future maps of that size) is to allow someone to take command during ready up phase, and pick one of 3 sets of drop points for their team.

It's good that there are maps this size, but there needs to be some reasons™ that might send teams to different parts of it.

[Greyhart]

Anjian, on 25 January 2016 - 04:05 AM, said:

It's useless to make that big a map for this game.

1. The game engine isn't very efficient and limits your graphics budget (polygons and textures). So you can't make that big of a map.
2. Even if you do make that big of a map, its not likely much of it will be utilized anyway due to the play mechanics.

Yes no one is going to play on the full map. the full map is only at the design stage. Players would only ever play on a small part of it therefore there being no need to load up the other parts of it.

It's a method of creating a large number of maps using the same assets and also creating the feeling that you are invading a planet in CW.

You might see the full map in a top down format when in the lobby of a CW map with the mission area highlighted.