36 replies to this topic

[Athom83]

DAYLEET, on 12 September 2017 - 11:34 AM, said:

Not the way you think of balance, no. But from my own experiences, it balances out because each time the map is different and nobody knows the map, the best spot etc. Its not like the current map we played a million times and know the spots+actions that are most likely to fail or win. And even then boredom makes a lot of us ignore the common sense of always playing at the same fkin place yet again over and over for eternity twice^10.

When games get new maps, players become complete *****s on said map for a good week or two. And that isn't just specifically for MWO, but WT, WoT, and other games as well. I've seen mid to high leveled players go complete brain dead on new maps and make n00b mistakes (like not see the enemy sitting right next to them, or shooting at allies, etc). Do you really want that EVERY match?

[DAYLEET]

Athom83, on 12 September 2017 - 11:43 AM, said:

When games get new maps, players become complete *****s on said map for a good week or two. And that isn't just specifically for MWO, but WT, WoT, and other games as well. I've seen mid to high leveled players go complete brain dead on new maps and make n00b mistakes (like not see the enemy sitting right next to them, or shooting at allies, etc). Do you really want that EVERY match?

People being raised in a sterilized mould are not used to play out of it, so what. Whatever you do first, you have to learn it and it goes for war too. We have sports match at best with set rules, aka an arena shooter. That breeds a certain play style with braindead rinse/repeat gameplay. If the map changed everytime, people would not be so focused on learning it like we do when we first drop on new map and it makes us do dumb things for science! We wouldnt be doing those dumb things if we werent getting paid with knowledge for the next time we drop on it, we would need to learn to play the game instead of the map. Also, theres nothing wrong with making noob mistake, you might just be noticing them or giving them importance in those circumstances.

[The Unstoppable Puggernaut]

I really like the idea of a partially randomised map. If you take the base then perhaps move the objectives a bit or the starting points a bit. I remember they changed the start points on Alpine and it felt completely new, just cause it was so big and most of the map never got used.

I really do feel they can get a lot MORE out of the maps they've made.

[adamts01]

Athom83, on 12 September 2017 - 10:26 AM, said:

I'd rather PGI work on more maps, and add variants to existing maps where Objectives and Spawns can be placed in different areas.

The Unstoppable Puggernaut, on 12 September 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

I really like the idea of a partially randomised map. If you take the base then perhaps move the objectives a bit or the starting points a bit. I remember they changed the start points on Alpine and it felt completely new, just cause it was so big and most of the map never got used.

I really do feel they can get a lot MORE out of the maps they've made.

Random maps aren't happening, and I do agree they should focus on the maps they do have. Was it the old Frozen city that had a version with melted snow? Or am I crazy? Well, I know I'm crazy. But they could do things like that, just add snow, or a flood, or a passing rain storm that helps with cooling, or an electrical storm that messes with lock-ons and energy range, or VARIABLE SPAWN POINTS.... You guys are right about the smartest move being working with what they've got, but for MWO2..... I want random maps!!!

[InspectorG]

El Bandito, on 11 September 2017 - 10:18 PM, said:

Balance nightmare. Dunno if PGI can pull it off.

Hell, look at the Spawn points on half of the maps for Objectives like Domination.

By the time your 130KPH mech gets there, reds already have 30 seconds of cap.

adamts01, on 12 September 2017 - 03:49 PM, said:

...

Random maps aren't happening, ...

Yeah, but they could take the maps they have, cut them into chunks, rotate or switch some of those chinks around, and give us 3-4 different versions of the same map.

Base topography could stay the same, just juggle the assets.

Anything, really.

[TheFallOfTheReaper]

Lmfao why do people keep using that ponzi scheme as an example of anything? Star citizen indeed, any other game is a better example :3

Edited by ShadowHimself, 12 September 2017 - 04:44 PM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Random Maps

Highest Performance by less Graphic and Deatails (seeing Ark Survival or No Mans Sky)
less Texturing and Details ...more Objects =more Problems and bugs
Gameengine AI can not logical place not natural Objects-no Place a Bridge over a River or Streets
from 100 Maps =90 very Ugly and full Bugs ...Objects flying in the Air or half in the Ground...spawn can placed in unpassable Terrain (climb System) ...great for Survival Games with a Builder human AI or empty Spaceworlds or only natural Worlds with less Texturesets (seeing ARK Survival)

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 12 September 2017 - 08:19 PM.

[SmoothCriminal]

I'm all for this - I think it would add a huge amount of immersion and if there are balance issues these would even out after several games.

It will never happen because PGI.

[dwwolf]

A tile based system, combined with a small measure of talent should be able to function well enough.

[Sandpit]

That's lostech


well unless you're trying to milk your audience for more money by selling them features in another game...

EDIT:

In other words, they "can't" do it for MWO, but somehow magically figure it out for MW5

Edited by Sandpit, 14 September 2017 - 07:02 AM.

[Athom83]

Sandpit, on 14 September 2017 - 07:01 AM, said:

That's lostech
well unless you're trying to milk your audience for more money by selling them features in another game...
EDIT:
In other words, they "can't" do it for MWO, but somehow magically figure it out for MW5

Well, its all possible but that has to do more with the engine. CryEngine3 just outright can't do it. Whatever engine they finalize for MW5 might be able to do it.

[Sandpit]

Athom83, on 14 September 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

Well, its all possible but that has to do more with the engine. CryEngine3 just outright can't do it. Whatever engine they finalize for MW5 might be able to do it.

Their poor business decision. I'm not overlooking this because they mismanaged their resources over the years.

https://www.google.c...KHd4gAPMQsAQILQ

Their inadequate programming abilities don't mean an engine can't do something, it means they don't know how to do it with the engine.

[Athom83]

Sandpit, on 14 September 2017 - 07:35 AM, said:

Their poor business decision. I'm not overlooking this because they mismanaged their resources over the years.
https://www.google.c...KHd4gAPMQsAQILQ
Their inadequate programming abilities don't mean an engine can't do something, it means they don't know how to do it with the engine.

You missed some things;
1) CryEngine 3 was the only real engine affordable enough and powerful enough to start on what PGI needed to do at the time.
2) CryEngine as a whole is actually quite a pain to deal with as the code language is in C++ but the scripting is all Lua and C#, while other Engines let you script in the main language.
3) The only ones to really understand CryEngine was CryTech.
4) CryEngine is really good at certain things (looking pretty, FPS, and large amounts of simple tasks) yet terrible at others (handling many complex tasks at once, Online play, etc).
5) While the CryEngine SDK can make random lumps of islands (not maps that would be any good for MWO), the commercial CryEngine 3 cannot. You can't be mixing your engines even if they are in the same family line. But even that system is jury rigged, a mod, and not a built in tool of the engine. And its not a RANDOM generator, its a level editor.
6) MW5 is being designed with the Unreal 4 engine, and is a lot easier to make a game in. Really good move on their part.
6.5) And IIRC in one of their streams they hinted moving MWO to Unreal 4 after they finish and release MW5. And at that point, they may be able to do randomly generated maps as Unreal 4 is actually kind of decent at that.

[Sandpit]

Athom83, on 14 September 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

You missed some things;
1) CryEngine 3 was the only real engine affordable enough and powerful enough to start on what PGI needed to do at the time.
2) CryEngine as a whole is actually quite a pain to deal with as the code language is in C++ but the scripting is all Lua and C#, while other Engines let you script in the main language.
3) The only ones to really understand CryEngine was CryTech.
4) CryEngine is really good at certain things (looking pretty, FPS, and large amounts of simple tasks) yet terrible at others (handling many complex tasks at once, Online play, etc).
5) While the CryEngine SDK can make random lumps of islands (not maps that would be any good for MWO), the commercial CryEngine 3 cannot. You can't be mixing your engines even if they are in the same family line. But even that system is jury rigged, a mod, and not a built in tool of the engine. And its not a RANDOM generator, its a level editor.
6) MW5 is being designed with the Unreal 4 engine, and is a lot easier to make a game in. Really good move on their part.
6.5) And IIRC in one of their streams they hinted moving MWO to Unreal 4 after they finish and release MW5. And at that point, they may be able to do randomly generated maps as Unreal 4 is actually kind of decent at that.

Wrong
1. Cryengine was chosen because they wanted to buy the engine. They actively chose to spend most of their game budget on that engine. It's well documented. This is just false in every sense of the word.

2. Not my problem They chose to buy it.

3. See above

4. See above

5. See above

6. See above

6.5. See above

I don't know where you got the idea that they went with Cryengine because it's the only thing they could afford but I promise you that is completely and totally untrue. It's not even remotely close to why they went with it. Russ himself has specifically stated this.

They announced the whole "new engine" thing 2 years ago long before they ever announced MW5. This game will not move to another engine. PGI is nowhere near competent enough to handle a transition like that. I don't mean competent as in they're incapable coding wise, I mean they're too incompetent on how to handle the logistics of that on the business side.

[Quantum theory]

A pseudo-random map creator (based on a seed value) is very doable. And the resulting maps can be highly detailed. Not sure why it has not happened. Frankly I think this would be the best way to play this game. Also, the game could allow the users to vote if they liked the map or not and that seed value could be used again or the map be tweaked to fit a certain need.

I have created random looking maps before (not in MWO) and some of them shocked me how amazing they were. This is pretty basic computer science at work here.

But that all said, if they released the format for the map files and a simple viewer it would open it up to the community to submit some maps and share the talent. I personally would rather write a program to generate them, much of the annoying tedious work is best done by a machine.

[Lily from animove]

dunno, it would need rather tight rules to which conditions woul have to exist to make a map balanced, butt hen they might not be much different and just change in rather minor things.

[Variant1]

Its not a good idea because the maps have to made to acount for weapon ranges/mechanics. BUT theoreticaly if the generator could account for that it could be possible. Simply create sections and designate them for certain range engagement (sniper, brawler, mid) and have according cover set in those spots, only problem with the generator is how well those sections mesh together