11 replies to this topic

[Dino Might]

After countless good (my judgement) ideas for revamps to MWO gameplay being cast aside because, "it's too much work," I have a solution.

Give players access to development tools like a map editor, 3D assets, and mission/script editing. Then let player made missions and campaigns run for a good 6 months or so. Look at the most popular one(s), and then ask them to take it on as an official gamemode.

Some of the best player experiences in games have been mods made by talented players. Let them do the legwork. At the same time you (PGI) don't have to waste time on potentially fruitless recommendations.

Just put a clause about all products developed using these tools are property of PGI or some such to deal with the legal eagles and let's get to it.

Edited by Dino Might, 30 July 2016 - 04:08 PM.

[AnTi90d]

If they let us make maps, I'd devote 4-8 hours a day to that task. I have no love for the people at the top, but I love Battletech enough to donate free labor to those turds.

[mailin]

This would be a really great thing to have happen. But, given PGI's optimization of this game, I'm a little afraid that something like this would really make even more of the software problems apparent, which could be why PGI plays everything so close to their chest.

[N0ni]

Will never happen with their "Russ is always right, the community knows nothing" policy.


But i would like to see a community map pool, that's what made previous mechwarrior games great.

I like this game alot, just not the people running it. Quit being stubborn and embrace some community ideas that are GOOD for the game... not the bad ones i.e. seperating FP queues, i feel like that was set up to fail on purpose though just to say "hey we did something the people wanted and they don't like it, not our fault!" But that's another topic entirely.

[SuomiWarder]

Well, I think the issues they are worried about are more related to intellectual property rights and messing with the super modded cry engine they have ended up with.

But whatever the reasons - good, stubbornness or both....pretty sure the answer is "No". "No". "A Thousand Times No!".

[Navid A1]

You'll have more chance trying to freeze hell.

[Monkey Lover]

I think you would find they don't really have these type of tools. Take for example maps. They're made by hand there is no editor. Other than mayb e some textures and trees everything has to be modeled. This is the main reason we only have a limited number of maps but all so the reason each map is very different from each other.

[FallingAce]

Monkey Lover, on 30 July 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

I think you would find they don't really have these type of tools. Take for example maps. They're made by hand there is no editor. Other than mayb e some textures and trees everything has to be modeled. This is the main reason we only have a limited number of maps but all so the reason each map is very different from each other.

Sounds like they need a better engine than the Crynengine

[Mystere]

FallingAce, on 30 July 2016 - 07:16 PM, said:

Sounds like they need a better engine than the Crynengine

That ship has sailed ... 5 years ago.

Edited by Mystere, 30 July 2016 - 07:28 PM.

[Navid A1]

Mystere, on 30 July 2016 - 07:28 PM, said:

That ship has sailed ... 5 years ago.

hehe..

that ship is sinking now... they are now swimming back to catch a new ship... it'll take a while.

[Mazzyplz]

never gonna happen.

people cry about getting stuck in official maps.

there could be no quality control of a flood of user created maps.

and what if a user makes a little cave that only he knows about that he can take and cap the enemy base or something like that?

the maps would have to be tested by pgi so thoroughly that they may as well just stick to making the maps themselves.

[Dino Might]

So how about devote resources to making user development tools if they don't already exist? Are they possible in Cryengine?

My example is DCS. It's a flight sim sandbox with very limited missions in the default game. But it has a mission editor and runs .Lua scripts allowing people to make incredible campaigns. Blue flag runs up to 55 people in the map plus AI units with logistics and capture systems. It is exactly what faction warfare should be like. It's incredible, and it's user made. Of all the multiplayer servers, it is the most popular.

So we have player run game modes, and the developer just worries about pumping out new aircraft modules for purchase. Sounds perfect for MWO. Players builds the content and PGI pumps out mech packs and assets (e.g. terrains, unit models). Win win.

Mazzyplz, on 30 July 2016 - 08:44 PM, said:

never gonna happen.

people cry about getting stuck in official maps.

there could be no quality control of a flood of user created maps.

and what if a user makes a little cave that only he knows about that he can take and cap the enemy base or something like that?

the maps would have to be tested by pgi so thoroughly that they may as well just stick to making the maps themselves.

Any user can go investigate maps being used with the editor, and gimmick maps would not be popular. You would obviously need a lobby system, and then players choose the type of game they wish to play, with the basic skirmish quick play still being a default option. Then, PGI looks at the missions/game modes that are most popular and works on standardizing them as official game modes.

Edited by Dino Might, 30 July 2016 - 08:49 PM.