183 replies to this topic

[Sir Roland MXIII]

Shirow, on 01 March 2016 - 02:38 PM, said:

the new engine would be good for the devs, but would it put any down time for us game wise?

we wouldnt lose anything ingame right?

servers wouldnt go down long?

I'm sure that these are all things they're taking into consideration as part of any transition, and would work to minimize or eliminate all of the above.

[GRiPSViGiL]

1453 R, on 01 March 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

How long has it been since the regular queue has had a major gameplay update, Grips?

CW folks are always, always, always, alwaysalwaysalwaysalways ALWAYS carping on and on about how their mode isn't deep enough, how it isn't engaging enough, how it doesn't mean enough, and how it isn't rewarding enough, and how the game is going to DIE FOREVER if Piranha doesn't drop everything to completely overhaul CW from the ground up.

Meantime? The Domination mode next month is the first time the regular queue has seen any sort of major new functionality since well before the implementation of CW in the first place. Information Warfare developments, so briefly, tortuously teased at back in The Great Rebalance, has been dropped entirely in favor of Community Warfare 3 - which is, as stated, the third major iteration cycle on CW.

Information Warfare, IW - something the developers originally considered to be a pillar of the game and of equal importance to Community Warfare, got one iteration cycle and was then shelved forever.

The regular/quickplay queue, where ninety percent of the game hangs out according to Russ, has not received any real attention save for the occasional new map since...well, since before I started playing MWO.

And yet CW is a couple of months away at best from its third major iteration cycle moving out the door.

No, CW players do NOT have a godsdamned case. They have been receiving the lion's share of development resources since before the introduction of CW. If those resources have to shift over to an engine transition, then CW folks can wait out that year with the rest of us, and feel what 90% of the MWO playerbase feels like every time Piranha announces a new Commodity Warfare development phase and yet says not a damn word on things like Solaris, quickplay improvements (outside the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned "fix matchmaker!" morons getting their say far too often), or in fact anything relevant whatsoever to the folks who don't do CW.

Your horse of significant vertical dimensions. Vacate it.

Well all matches were suppose to matter according to PGI way back when so take it up with Russ. In essence EVERY quick play match you do should be tied to CW in some way...by grinding faction points at the very least,. At least CW was sold and presented as some kind of end game that had a plan that has virtually become intangible to this point.

Actually, Quick play gets the lion share of PGIs attention and "development" and you know it. Every time they pop out mech packs they are consumed by the quick play crowd who care nothing for depth in this game and that is how PGI likes it I am sure. There is plenty of ways quickplay matches could be given more meaning and purpose tied to CW but PGI is to lazy or to incompetent to do it, pick one. I would rather play quickplay matches as part of CW aside from the current CW maps and modes so it would be a welcomed change to CW if PGI made that happen, like they said they were.

We really aren't on different sides here but PGI is the problem that is for sure.

[Jaegon]

Some of the biggest pain in the *** aspects of game development are the things that, "if you do it right, nobody ever notices it", specifically to user interface and HUD, there are just an endless list of little features existing in the game (little pop up windows in the store, the community warfare system, the mechlab systems, etc)... those are the things that *to me* seem like they would be really prohibitive to port entirely to a brand new tech solution.

Making the mechs walk around, reimporting art assets? Probably not world-wrecking amount of work, but even then there are snags all over the place like getting terrain from Crytek into something else, when so much of the terrain is their proprietary editor results and such.

Anyway, I don't know... I'm just skeptical that it would be something completely unrelated to Crytek in some way. *shrug*


One thing to keep in mind though, is that different versions of the same basic tech can give extremely different results. Just because something started out as one tech, doesn't mean it cheapens future revisions. Hell, there are still parts of Unreal 4 that Tim Sweeney wrote into Unreal 1. So, them upgrading to something else based on Crytek (but newer) could still be a huge benefit to the overall game, especially with performance and visuals.

Edited by Jaegon, 01 March 2016 - 02:51 PM.

[Mystere]

1453 R, on 01 March 2016 - 02:40 PM, said:

Well, as I've told you before Mystere, when you were crusading to get the quickplay queue cut entirely and force everyone into hour-long dropdeck matches in CW...

That is what you think because you totally missed the gist of my so-called "crusade" (LOL!). Quick Play as a mode would indeed be gone. But, its essence would then exist in three places: Training Academy, Community Warfare, and Solaris with the proper lipstick and other makeup to fit in. You did not or refused to see that, blew a gasket, and the thread was sent to the Twilight Zone.

(Or was I thinking of someone else who blew a gasket? )

Edited by Mystere, 01 March 2016 - 03:00 PM.

[Gyrok]

Sir Roland MXIII, on 01 March 2016 - 02:13 PM, said:

I'm sure that PGI is taking the amount of work for a transition into account, and yes it could potentially be a mountain of work - which in itself is a fairly potent criticism of CE on PGIs part that they're considering it at all. While I would be another one who's fine with development stalling during this period, I agree the vast majority wouldn't - I can think of some games, one of which is currently dying off as we speak, that went too long between game updates for the community to stay with it.

PGI is likely aware of this and taking into account how a transition could be accomplished without putting the brakes on development.



How I want to look at DNF has nothing to do with personal opinion so much as fact. To be clear, your overall point is still accurate - PGI claimed to listen to the Nukem fans, asked what they wanted and didn't want, then reversed the two and went that way. Unsurprisingly the fans hated it - a situation painfully echoed with MW:O's early years.

You need to keep in mind though, that Gearbox inherited the game from prior developers, so they worked with what they had. As far as PGIs influence, whatever parts you wish to claim were their responsiblity, IE gameplay, graphics, so-called story, etc., was only theirs if it was part of the multiplayer module.

And yes, trust me, the irony of me finding myself in a position of defending PGI isn't lost on me one bit.



It depends on how different UE4 is to the UEs PGI had prior experience with, and how much they've forgotten will impact that as well.



And the same is true of upping the engine to CE4, which also begs the question of how far along CE4 even is at all. UE4 already has games being released on it, last I checked, but discussion here by Russ and the community about the MW:O engine upgrade vs transition was the first I'd heard of a fourth CryEngine.

CE4 is already in Star Citizen

[Deathlike]

Guys really keep looking over things briefly and not looking over MWO's past history as its own benchmark.

When PGI was still "upgrading" CryEngine more, they kept added more bugs as a consequence.

The occasional "flash to black" where some effect (probably missile) occurs and your screen suddenly goes to black all of sudden (affecting all vision modes equally)... one of many various bugs that still lingers today.


While I'd like to think the CryEngine change would be beneficial on the whole, the bugs that come with that will be popping up left and right. PGI's track history suggests that they have done ports before of other games (before CryEngine 3), it's not going to be a smooth transition. Any efforts in this area can and will delay other efforts going on.


Having that CryEngine update isn't going to be any different from the UI 2.0 "Jesus patch"... it just won't be magical... and with the time spent on QA (or lack thereof), you will be experiencing stuff as if this game was a/in beta. You need to set your expectations properly... it's not going to magically improve things (even if better improvements in performance are there, having better hardware usually facilitates more effectively).

[Metus regem]

Gyrok, on 01 March 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

CE4 is already in Star Citizen

Ah, the grate space scam money pit....

[Sir Roland MXIII]

Deathlike, on 01 March 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

Guys really keep looking over things briefly and not looking over MWO's past history as its own benchmark.

When PGI was still "upgrading" CryEngine more, they kept added more bugs as a consequence.

The occasional "flash to black" where some effect (probably missile) occurs and your screen suddenly goes to black all of sudden (affecting all vision modes equally)... one of many various bugs that still lingers today.


While I'd like to think the CryEngine change would be beneficial on the whole, the bugs that come with that will be popping up left and right. PGI's track history suggests that they have done ports before of other games (before CryEngine 3), it's not going to be a smooth transition. Any efforts in this area can and will delay other efforts going on.


Having that CryEngine update isn't going to be any different from the UI 2.0 "Jesus patch"... it just won't be magical... and with the time spent on QA (or lack thereof), you will be experiencing stuff as if this game was a/in beta. You need to set your expectations properly... it's not going to magically improve things (even if better improvements in performance are there, having better hardware usually facilitates more effectively).

If I may clarifiy, in my case I have not forgotten how PGI prefer to overpromise and under deliver, though they have proven that the blame for that behaviour was, to some extent, IGP's fault. Not entirely their fault, true, but since IGP left the picture things have gotten better.

Having said that, I don't know how many people honestly expect a new engine of any kind to be a magic wand. I know for a fact that, as you say, the new engine would introduce a lot of instability upfront. However, that's the short-term aspect, and many of us here are looking at the long-term, because that's what PGI is looking at.

I have to be honest, I still think that the long-term for MW would be better served in hands other than PGI - but for now, we're stuck with them, and if the long-term for PGI is improved by changing engines, then I for one welcome our new engine overlords.

Edited by Sir Roland MXIII, 01 March 2016 - 03:01 PM.

[Deathlike]

Sir Roland MXIII, on 01 March 2016 - 02:59 PM, said:

If I may clarifiy, in my case I have not forgotten how PGI prefer to overpromise and under deliver, though they have to some extent proven that the blame for that behaviour was, to some extent, IGP's fault. Not entirely their fault, true, but since IGP left the picture things have gotten better.

To some degree, the IGP excuse has been thrown around often, probably even for things they aren't responsible for.

Quote

Having said that, I don't know how many people honestly expect a new engine of any kind to be a magic wand. I know for a fact that, as you say, the new engine would introduce a lot of instability upfront. However, that's the short-term aspect, and many of us here are looking at the long-term, because that's what PGI is looking at.

I don't have an issue with the short term problems - ONLY if the these issues are resolved quickly. With month long patches and PGI's track record with resolving issues (either they are poor to recognize the issue or slow to resolve them), this is a painful wait (depending on the severity of the bug).

Quote

I have to be honest, I still think that the long-term for MW would be better served in hands other than PGI - but for now, we're stuck with them, and if the long-term for PGI is improved by changing engines, then I for one welcome our new engine overlords.

Yes... it would be better if it wasn't PGI at the wheel (but, I know it can always be worse, just as well). It's kinda sad really.

Edited by Deathlike, 01 March 2016 - 03:04 PM.

[Gyrok]

Sir Roland MXIII, on 01 March 2016 - 02:34 PM, said:

Thank you for that perspective. Hadn't heard of Lumberyard before, but then again my ear is to the ground on the hardware side, not software, so no surprise there. I have to admit too, all this talk of MW:O going to a new engine seemed off to me, since I knew they'd have to circular file a lot of work and start over for a new engine. However I think he said something to the effect that they'd lose a lot of work going to CE4, too.

So if I may ask, how possible is it that anything they've done for MW:O using third party software do you think could be used in another engine - not just UE but anything else. As I'm a hardware specialist / enthusiast it's not my domain, so any insight you can offer would be appreciated.

I can chime in on some of this...

Scaleform is actually a 3rd party solution that ties into lots of main stream engines. As far as the UI components and other things created via Scaleform, as long as you are not drastically changing things...the conversion would be less difficult.

In fact, in most instances, my experience says that changing over things that are saved in 3rd party systems (assuming cross compatibility between both mediums, mind you) is typically a bit easier because you can take the original, convert the format, and the UI/art conversions are pretty well easy from there.

The biggest components that would be more difficult to change would be the infrastructure. Which, as a game developer, the infrastructure is everything you do not see that ties all the magic pieces together. We are talking, website/store/servers/updates/QA/engine backend/databases/custom dev tools/system formulas/netcode, all that. Essentially the underneath nuts and bolts are the most complicated....and because they take years to build up...a conversion would essentially be absurd.

Having seen source for CE through 3.7 and peeking under the hood of CE4 (3.8.5), if they were on CE3.4 at this point...it would not be dramatically different. Lots of the source is the same...and honestly...in some instances, it is better documented code, and better developer tools from that perspective.

The mention of lumberyard is intriguing honestly. If Amazon offered to convert the infrastructure turn key, and assume infrastructure hosting...that might actually not be a terrible thing to deal with, and could potentially be a pretty sweet deal if they cut a hard enough bargain on the hosting costs...

[Sir Roland MXIII]

Gyrok, on 01 March 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

CE4 is already in Star Citizen

Hadn't heard that, myself, last I knew they were still on CE3. If so, that's an interesting data point for upgrade compatibility.

Gyrok, on 01 March 2016 - 03:13 PM, said:

I can chime in on some of this...

Scaleform is actually a 3rd party solution that ties into lots of main stream engines. As far as the UI components and other things created via Scaleform, as long as you are not drastically changing things...the conversion would be less difficult.

In fact, in most instances, my experience says that changing over things that are saved in 3rd party systems (assuming cross compatibility between both mediums, mind you) is typically a bit easier because you can take the original, convert the format, and the UI/art conversions are pretty well easy from there.

The biggest components that would be more difficult to change would be the infrastructure. Which, as a game developer, the infrastructure is everything you do not see that ties all the magic pieces together. We are talking, website/store/servers/updates/QA/engine backend/databases/custom dev tools/system formulas/netcode, all that. Essentially the underneath nuts and bolts are the most complicated....and because they take years to build up...a conversion would essentially be absurd.

Well, that was the impression I was under, good to see I wasn't far off. Granted, my knowledge of software is admittedly second-hand but I have been rubbing elbows with software folks for nearly twenty years, some of it was bound to stick.

Gyrok, on 01 March 2016 - 03:13 PM, said:

Having seen source for CE through 3.7 and peeking under the hood of CE4 (3.8.5), if they were on CE3.4 at this point...it would not be dramatically different. Lots of the source is the same...and honestly...in some instances, it is better documented code, and better developer tools from that perspective.

Good to know.

Gyrok, on 01 March 2016 - 03:13 PM, said:

The mention of lumberyard is intriguing honestly. If Amazon offered to convert the infrastructure turn key, and assume infrastructure hosting...that might actually not be a terrible thing to deal with, and could potentially be a pretty sweet deal if they cut a hard enough bargain on the hosting costs...

Okay, I may be misunderstanding things here, but would that possibly interfere with them being on Steam? My guess would be 'no' but I figure it can't hurt to ask.

[Gyrok]

Sir Roland MXIII, on 01 March 2016 - 03:22 PM, said:

Hadn't heard that, myself, last I knew they were still on CE3. If so, that's an interesting data point for upgrade compatibility.

As far as Star Citizen is concerned, while they hold an open ended source license (assuming they do, it was roughly $1.2 mil last time I had to negotiate a license)...they are guaranteed access to the newest CE tech from CryTek. The onus is on you to incorporate it, and upgrade accordingly, but the tech is available while you are still putting your game out there. Sometimes the tech upgrades cost money, other times not. In this instance, CE4 is merely a jump from 3.7 to 3.8.5.

Quote

Well, that was the impression I was under, good to see I wasn't far off. Granted, my knowledge of software is admittedly second-hand but I have been rubbing elbows with software folks for nearly twenty years, some of it was bound to stick.

Well, the truth about it is...the stuff that is through 3rd party software boils down to being about 10-30% of the stuff you could possibly convert, depending upon how much art assets your game uses, how much UI, etc. So, the lion's share is a royal PITA that most developers would scoff at re-opening in terms of the size of the can of worms.

Quote

Good to know.

Quote

Okay, I may be misunderstanding things here, but would that possibly interfere with them being on Steam? My guess would be 'no' but I figure it can't hurt to ask.

Not necessarily.

The only issue that may stem there would be if any portion of the agreement required Amazon to become the publisher. Not being very familiar with lumberyard at all...I would not really know if that was the case. In a situation like this, even if it was part of the standard literature in the agreement for lumberyard, as a company with a published/developed game, converting something like MWO to amazon services could be arranged so that it was just a difference in web hosting and nothing more...(assuming amazon is amenable to changing any possible language that assumes otherwise)

In that instance, the only real possibility you would see is that you might be able to get MWO through an amazon DL as well...and perhaps the store would now be incorporated using Amazon payment services, etc.

In other words...no huge ripples, just some minor things from a player perspective would change up...not necessarily for the better or the worse either...just different.

[Sandpit]

1453 R, on 01 March 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

So you'd be willing to put up with a freeze on features development for a year while Piranha transitioned to a new engine?

If so, that makes three people I know of who would - you, me, and Metus. CW players especially do rather have a tendency to try and demand that all other development activities be sidelined in favor of more work on CW. I really don't think they'd take it well if Piranha took a year off of active features development to work on an engine switch. Do you?

It's not a matter of "all other aspects sidelined", it's a matter of being a major feature and selling point to many founders 4 years ago. Slow development is one thing, waiting 4 years for one game mode to be even remotely fleshed out (far from finished) is another

Only so much patience and understanding can be expected from a customer. If you had to wait 45 minutes for that fast food, you wouldn't be very happy even if it was a perfectly prepared burger that looked just like the commercial when you finally got it.

Know that's not an analogy to this dev cycle, but it's an explanation into why customers are frustrated and out of patience in many cases. It's not like they just announced CW last year and started working on it. This has been live for almost 2 years now. There's no excuse for that. I don't expect it to be perfected and polished at this point, but I do expect more forward progress on development and IMPLEMENTATION of that development than what we've had thus far.

In the case of CW, I personally feel anyone that bought into the game as a founder or started supporting the game as a free player in those time frames has every right to be upset at this development speed in regards to CW.

WarHippy, on 01 March 2016 - 02:26 PM, said:

I'm sure what you are saying is true, but my understanding is that according to Russ going with an entirely new engine(whatever it may be), or upgrading to this new version of our existing engine that is coming out would be pretty much the same amount of work. I'm not sure how accurate that really could be, but if the work load is the same maybe maybe a complete jump to a different engine is possible rather than just another flavor of what we already have?

This is the other side of that. Russ stated it was going to be an equal amount of work either way they went which is why they're seriously considering a switch and looking into the possibility.

1453 R, on 01 March 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

How long has it been since the regular queue has had a major gameplay update, Grips?

CW folks are always, always, always, alwaysalwaysalwaysalways ALWAYS carping on and on about how their mode isn't deep enough, how it isn't engaging enough, how it doesn't mean enough, and how it isn't rewarding enough, and how the game is going to DIE FOREVER if Piranha doesn't drop everything to completely overhaul CW from the ground up.

Meantime? The Domination mode next month is the first time the regular queue has seen any sort of major new functionality since well before the implementation of CW in the first place.

A few things

First, the quickplay queue has had major adjustments and modifications made to it quite regularly, especially in comparison to CW.
more maps
map reworks
PSR
separating the queues
voting option
I could keep going

in comparison?
The last major implementation for CW was units
almost 2 years ago

Can we stop with the melodrama? We've been having a pretty cool discussion here regarding the engine possibility and such. The whole exaggeration of "MWO will die cuz CW" stuff has no place in this thread. You're just painting negative stereotypes. Not a single solitary person in this thread (that I've seen anyhow) has been attacking any other portion of the player base, so don't be "that guy"

What you actually mean to say is Domination mode is the first new mode the entire game has gotten. CW or otherwise. That does not mean PGI hasn't focused on, revamped, and invested heavily into the development of quickplay. The entire game has been catered around and heavily developed for quickplay (which was never, according to PGI's words, wupposed to be the "main" mode. It just became that because it was the ONLY way to play the game for 2 years) and the crowd that enjoys QP as their main way to play the game.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 01 March 2016 - 03:02 PM, said:

I don't have an issue with the short term problems - ONLY if the these issues are resolved quickly. With month long patches and PGI's track record with resolving issues (either they are poor to recognize the issue or slow to resolve them), this is a painful wait (depending on the severity of the bug).

and this is what really and truly is at the crux of the issue for players that have been here for a few years when it comes to the dev speed here. MWO and PGI have a very well-documented and long history of lingering issues that take months, if not years to correct. Yes, it's game development and it's tricky at times, but this is also a professional multi-million dollar game development company. It's specifically what they get paid to do.
There's slow and then there's MWO

My true hope is that they're considering all of this and trying to find a solution to help speed up the dev process.

[Sir Roland MXIII]

Sandpit, on 01 March 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

and this is what really and truly is at the crux of the issue for players that have been here for a few years when it comes to the dev speed here. MWO and PGI have a very well-documented and long history of lingering issues that take months, if not years to correct. Yes, it's game development and it's tricky at times, but this is also a professional multi-million dollar game development company. It's specifically what they get paid to do.
There's slow and then there's MWO

My true hope is that they're considering all of this and trying to find a solution to help speed up the dev process.

I would bet money that's a major factor in them considering another engine over CE4.

[1453 R]

Sandpit, on 01 March 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

My true hope is that they're considering all of this and trying to find a solution to help speed up the dev process.

I would hope, and tentatively surmise, that such is in fact a primary concern in any sort of engine-update debates at the PGI offices. Especially considering how much trouble they've had with CryEngine, and how not-helpful CryTek has been with resolving those troubles.

Anyways...something of a very sore spot earlier, Sandpit. Apologies.

[GrimRiver]

They really should go with UE4, I heard(only heard, don't know for sure) it's soo easy to work with a inept mental patient can use it(Not calling PGI an "inept mental patient" just saying how easy it is to use).

[LordKnightFandragon]

Just as long as the game actually starts to brighten up a little bit.....the grey everything background is annoying.

[Gyrok]

GrimRiver, on 01 March 2016 - 07:00 PM, said:

They really should go with UE4, I heard(only heard, don't know for sure) it's soo easy to work with a inept mental patient can use it(Not calling PGI an "inept mental patient" just saying how easy it is to use).

The issue there is the fact that the game they have built to this point will not just roll over into any UE format. The 2 code bases are not even remotely close, and they would have to recreate all the modifications to the engine they have implemented so far in UE to even have the game back up and running.

I really think people underestimate how much work we are talking about.

To create a new MMO infrastructure from scratch (essentially what you would be doing, as only art assets, etc. would convert), is an undertaking that a company like bioware spends years doing...with a team of 100+ developers.

A change to UE4 is beyond a reasonable doubt out of the question.

[LT. HARDCASE]

UE4 is nice, but does PGI have the time, talent, and budget to completely rebuild their game in a new engine?

They may have to go CE4 by default.

edit: yeah what Gyrok said too. UE4 would take years and may bankrupt the company

Edited by LT. HARDCASE, 01 March 2016 - 07:07 PM.