54 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

make it like the MWO World Cup Tournament pack,

=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=

call it the MWO First Landing Map Pack,

offer 3 Map Concepts(of which one will be selected to be worked on next)
and below a contribution bar(which when filled will start the progress to make a map)


$10 buy in,
comes with 1Title, 1Badge, 1Standing Item(Map Asset), 1Hanging Item(Map Asset),

$20 buy in,
comes with 1Title, 1Badge, 3Standing Items(Map Asset), 3Hanging Items(Map Asset),
Player may choose which map he would like to see worked on(Map with the most Votes gets started)
-
also when in the Map Section of (mwomercs) selecting the New Map will not only display map info,
but also have a list of players who have contributed to this level of the MWO First Landing Map Pack,


When the Map is finished is will be patched in like all other Maps(to all MWO Players),
but those who Contributed also get the Title/Badge/Items associated with that map,

=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=

=(Poll)=

=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=

this way maps can be more or less crowd funded within MWO,

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

Edit1- more info added

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 19 February 2018 - 03:52 PM.

[Deathlike]

No.

Having seen too many maps fail the "quality test", I can't even in good conscience fund it.

That and it hasn't been described how everyone gets the map - is it just the people that paid into it or everyone gets the map at some point?

If it's the former, you are cutting off your own legs due to population woes.

There's just too many problems with PGI and mapmaking to justify any sort of specific funding/kickstarter for such a monumental task of creating "1 map a year" when there should obviously be more than that on a regular basis.

[Andi Nagasia]

@Deathlike
good point i wasnt too clear(added to Topic)
when the map is finished everyone gets access to the map,
but those who contributed at least $10 get their Title/Badge/Items as well,
and if they paid $20, they also get their name on the site as a map contributor,

[Exilyth]

I'm not sure.

More maps would be nice to have, but invisible walls on existing maps have me worried.

I'd be inclined to say "Let's wait until after MW5 has released. Maybe MW:O will get ported to UE4 and get some of MW5s maps. Maybe a simple rolling hills type of map (think polar but higher elevations) could serve as a band aid until then."

After that, maybe.


Edit:
Slightly related: http://vterrain.org/ is a site which collects scientific papers, algorithms and similar resources for terrain creation/rendering. The site is not always up to date on all topics and a lot to read, but a nice collection of information nonetheless. Maybe some of that information could inspire the devs.

Edited by Exilyth, 19 February 2018 - 05:02 PM.

[The Lighthouse]

How about, instead of Titles and badges that very few people care, we give people "Early Privilege" bonus?

Say, people pay 15 bucks and they get Early Privilege bonus for next 6 months when the new map(s) come out.

Those with Early Privilege will get:

1) 5x+ voting multifiler when they vote for the new maps.
2) When a match is done, they will get 40% cbill bonus that can be stacked with Premium Time and other cbill bonus, and 50% XP bonus.
3) And maybe badge, but this is not important.

[Alex Morgaine]

Show me the splash page and ideal promises and I'll get back to you. Tbh at this point of probably buy in for a map pack made faster rather then Mechs, though there are quite a few I'd like to see in mechland still mind you.

[Scyther]

While I think the idea has potential, any MMO based on a popular (if niche) IP which needs to crowdfund development of basic ongoing game features has some pretty fundamental business management/game design issues to address.

Sight unseen, I would be unlikely to fund development of maps when other areas of game development seem to be on an "if we feel like it, we might change something" cycle.

If they made a 'pack' out of it, for as you say $10/$20 funding levels, and included some extras with it like a decent amount of C-Bills, a map-related warhorn, and a map-related camo pattern unlock, then at least I would know I was getting something I wouldn't be entirely disappointed by. If that was done then I wouldn't care about early access, exclusive map play whatever... just sell some packs with a few bonus goodies to offset the map development cost.

Edited by MadBadger, 19 February 2018 - 04:55 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Deathlike, on 19 February 2018 - 03:48 PM, said:

No.

Having seen too many maps fail the "quality test", I can't even in good conscience fund it.

That and it hasn't been described how everyone gets the map - is it just the people that paid into it or everyone gets the map at some point?

If it's the former, you are cutting off your own legs due to population woes.

There's just too many problems with PGI and mapmaking to justify any sort of specific funding/kickstarter for such a monumental task of creating "1 map a year" when there should obviously be more than that on a regular basis.

x 1ty. Crowd Funding what PGI should have been doing a much better job of, regularly? Heeeelllll nooooo boyo.

Instead of crowd funding...

Open up maps to the community. I sheet you not, within 2-4 weeks, you'd have maps better than PGI have made without invisible terrain hitboxes, more interesting gameplay etc...

However what is really needed to make the maps we have fun? Dynamic spawn locations. Doing this will....

• Make light pilots roles actually viable rather than just leg-humping assaults with MGs.
  
• You never know where your enemy will come from, you can't just move to the "usual" square".
  
• Gameplay won't become the boring NASCAR/P-Tornado/Merry-go-round or the insanely boring holding like Frozen City Assault (Worst map/mode outside of Escort).
  
• More area of the map would actually get used (why make so larger maps if 90% never gets used?)
  
• Communication in game would be increased and rewarded where now it's just a case of "Lets move to G7, enemy will be in H7 in 45 seconds).

I mean I literally know where enemies will be, and at what time, on virtually every map. It's boring as hell and a result of static spawn locations. Granted some maps it's not really possible (HPG/Caustic) but there are plenty of "new maps" like Terra, Frozen, Rubellite etc that are soooo large yet often, have totally unused sections. Waste of resources to make maps that big.

It would revive the gameplay and spark so much more interesting - how it hasn't happened yet I do not really understand.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 19 February 2018 - 05:39 PM.

[sycocys]

I don't really want to see PGI create any more maps, but I'd toss them 10 to release a kit for players to create maps with some sort of framework for getting them added to live game testing and eventually the best voted ones into rotation.

[justcallme A S H]

sycocys, on 19 February 2018 - 05:43 PM, said:

I don't really want to see PGI create any more maps, but I'd toss them 10 to release a kit for players to create maps with some sort of framework for getting them added to live game testing and eventually the best voted ones into rotation.

Yep. I'd consider that and only, that.

Give the maps a test period / server open for a week - top 5 voted etc. Implement them... Obviously PGI need to verify there are no "hiding" spots but if they open up a proper forum and actually monitor it and action it fast - if someone did do something like this the map is instantly pulled outta rotation and the map creator is banned from submitting anymore.

Make the penalties tough, people won't abuse it IMO

Most games I have played the longest are the ones that allow community driven maps /modes and stuff because that is what causes games to live on longer than their expected shelf life.

Honestly if this was looked at and supported over Solaris, that would be the injection of life the game needs... I'm not convinced Solaris is (and FP support potentially dropped, as stated by a PGI employee at Mechcon).

Edited by justcallme A S H, 19 February 2018 - 05:52 PM.

[The Lighthouse]

justcallme A S H, on 19 February 2018 - 05:34 PM, said:

It would revive the gameplay and spark so much more interesting - how it hasn't happened yet I do not really understand.

PGI's answer would be "legacy code limitation". I doubt there are any engineers left in PGI to implement dynamic spawn system. Not to mention this dynamic spawning has been requested so many times, and PGI did not even give us answer.... thus most likely they can't implement it at this point.

[Brain Cancer]

I'd be more worried about the funds going towards whatever other project Russ wanted to make, rather than MWO. Again.

[Helsbane]

We've offered to create maps for MWO for years, so this whole opt in thing just falls kinda flat. As ASH stated above, open up the map creation tools to the players, and you'll have more maps than you know what to do with in short order. As for map vetting, put it on the test server (after someone blows the dust off it) and allow the players to run it through its paces before it goes live. When a map passes the QA tests, give the maker a pack of freebie stuff (hero mechs, MC, pile of Cbills, etc.) that really doesn't cost PGI anything anyway. Win for MWO. Win for the players.

[The Lighthouse]

Helsbane, on 19 February 2018 - 05:55 PM, said:

We've offered to create maps for MWO for years, so this whole opt in thing just falls kinda flat. As ASH stated above, open up the map creation tools to the players, and you'll have more maps than you know what to do with in short order. As for map vetting, put it on the test server (after someone blows the dust off it) and allow the players to run it through its paces before it goes live. When a map passes the QA tests, give the maker a pack of freebie stuff (hero mechs, MC, pile of Cbills, etc.) that really doesn't cost PGI anything anyway. Win for MWO. Win for the players.

I believe this has something to do with ToU with crytek, and I doubt it was made favoring PGI.

Last thing we want is yet another lawsuit.

[Sigmar Sich]

Or, PGI could integrate random map generator from MW5. Where game chooses random collision mesh, and dresses it with random preset of textures/decorations. (sort of like old Forest colony was made from same geometry, in normal and winter variant. Just with better quality. Snow was so awkward)
3 collision meshes + 3 biomes with different textures and objects = 9 maps. And we have more than 3 biomes.
And despite of similar geometry, terra therma biome would feel very different from polar.
Such maps can go under single option in vote lobby, as Random map. So they wouldn't spam vote options.

About community maps - PGI's community management is far below required level to manage community-created content.

[InvictusLee]

No.
This entire flippin game is crowdfunded.
And even then the devs pretty much ignore the player base and run roughshod over us while expecting us to drop money on mechpacks. Russ is a greedy fool so fixated on money that he cant see his clickfunnel desguised as a game is dying a very slow death with no new custome.. "ahem".. players being added to the game to maintain its over all boyancy.

Keep your maps.
Keep your mechpacks.
Keep your nerfs.
Keep your "roles" and "balance" and PR buzzwords.
Fix the game's many many bugs, quality of life issues and actual flipping balance the techbases. Then maybe we'll talk about giving you money for new projects.
Fund your losing lawsuit some otherway.
Fund your wanna be hail-mary of a future flop the way normal game devs do and quit stradding this community with unnnessesary financial burdens.

Nerfing or buffing things by a .5 is going to do diddly ****. Make real changes.
Keep money spent on MWO invested IN MWO.

Edited by November11th, 19 February 2018 - 07:06 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

November11th, on 19 February 2018 - 07:05 PM, said:

Fund your losing lawsuit some otherway.
Fund your wanna be hail-mary of a future flop the way normal game devs do and quit stradding this community with unnnessesary financial burdens.

um this isnt a Rant topic, please stay on topic,

[InvictusLee]

Andi Nagasia, on 19 February 2018 - 07:07 PM, said:

um this isnt a Rant topic, please stay on topic,

excuse me if i get a little salty when asked to donate money to people who dont seem to know what they are doing. PGI's saleries and expenses are NOT the responsibility of the playerbase.
If they cant afford to make maps and do it on the cheap, thats on them. Not us. Giving them money to do it wont help them do it, they'll just blow it on ******* and hookers for all we know. We already know that they dont really do much testing of their creations.

If i wanted to give money away so someone can blow it irrisponsibly, id call my ex.

Instead, if we the playerbase, had access to the creationkit or whatever cryengine uses, then maybe we as a playerbase can help PGI In a non-monetary way through the use of official mods and or maps and or mech designs and or weapons. Take the bethesda route, and take the best ideas, vett them and incorporate them into the game. Win win. Pgi gets free labor and we get something we actually like.

[Andi Nagasia]

November11th, on 19 February 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

excuse me if i get a little salty when asked to donate money to people who dont seem to know what they are doing.

im not asking people to donate money to PGI,
im asking if people would support a concept that would allow Crowd founding maps,
a simple, No i would rather not spend money on this Concept would do,

November11th, on 19 February 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

PGI's saleries and expenses are NOT the responsibility of the playerbase.

well in a way they are, they provide a service and we pay for that service,
thats how every company pays the saleries of their employees,

November11th, on 19 February 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

Instead, if we the playerbase, had access to the creationkit or whatever cryengine uses, then maybe we as a playerbase can help PGI In a non-monetary way through the use of official mods and or maps and or mech designs and or weapons. Take the bethesda route, and take the best ideas, vett them and incorporate them into the game. Win win. Pgi gets free labor and we get something we actually like.

giving us creation kits to make maps wont solve the problem,
because for every 100 maps they get maybe only 1-2 will be good,
and PGI would have to vet them before they add them, which would take development time,
its not as clear cut as you would think, and it has its own set of problems,

[justcallme A S H]

While November isn't expressing himself calmy, he is dead right Andi.

To start a thread as a Mod for PGI, asking if it's a good idea to start a handout campaign for maps. In light of the fact of how much has been promised and never delivered or delivered in a way that it was promised. It is quite cheeky IMO.

Many players have spent 100's of dollars, myself included, based on a bunch of promises that have never eventuated.

Andi Nagasia, on 19 February 2018 - 07:40 PM, said:

giving us creation kits to make maps wont solve the problem,
because for every 100 maps they get maybe only 1-2 will be good,
and PGI would have to vet them before they add them, which would take development time,
its not as clear cut as you would think, and it has its own set of problems,

Solve what problem? The problem of shelling out money to get the content we've already paid for? Come on, how dumb do you think we all are?

It apparently costs "$250,000" to make a map. By that same logic it couldn't take more than 10% of that to vett a map in "development time" and profit from the time saved, more people that would potentially keep playing, more revenue generated.

Don't play it off as not possible. It's very possible. But to do it means letting go of control, that doesn't fly in those offices.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 19 February 2018 - 09:48 PM.