DUST Search - [Feedback/request] Update the older maps

All Channels

Outposts

[Feedback/request] Update the older maps

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)

CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 898	Posted - 2013.09.16 00:17:00 - [1] - Quote It is intended update outposts and game mode areas. No ETA. A good chance the first one on the outpost side to get updated is the Orbital Artillery.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 912	Posted - 2013.09.16 08:57:00 - [2] - Quote Doyle Reese wrote: will this mean that the Orbital Artillery will get it's own set of corresponding Medium Sockets? We selected existing medium and smalls to go with the current OA. But yes, the new OA will have specifically designed mediums and smalls for it. Doyle Reese wrote: Also, will the Orbital Artillery finally be functional? (usable Skyfire Battery? !!) I don't know. But we would eventually like to make them functional.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 922	Posted - 2013.09.17 00:41:00 - [3] - Quote Aikuchi Tomaru wrote: CCP LogicLoop wrote: I don't know. But we would eventually like to make them functional. May I propose that it may be a good idea to make it functional whith the FW-Overhaul which will allow Eve Players to earn orbitals? Would be fitting, because it would allow Dust-Players to do something against orbitals, even if they haven't brought their own Spacebuddies. I can only imagine how helpless Dusties would feel if their enemies have orbitals and they can't influence it at all. I guess firing orbitals from the planet into space can't be that much different from firing them from spaceships onto planets. Recently had a talk with a few of the Eve devs on a conference chat. The OA firing was brought up. Same answer, but they are aware it currently can not fire, but that we want to make it fire in the future.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 941	Posted - 2013.09.18 00:12:00 - [4] - Quote Joey-Number1 wrote: Ghural wrote: The old Gallente one looks like cartoonish crap next to the new Gallente style. Cartoonish? No not at all. The Gallente Communications outpost is a masterpiece. I still love it and its very unique. And I like both the new research facility is of a bit different flavor and is just monumental, but the old one is very good. Edit: not sure if anyone noticed, but all the older outposts are pretty much updated, the textures and everything is as good as the new outpost :P. And the mood is awesome everywhere. The tops and roofs of the buildings especially seems to be updated too. Tho i now read most of the comments and its really not about the looks, cause all looks fantastic, only few comments catched me so I responded The primary issue is not about the art style. It is about the methods used for the texturing of the models and other various technical aspects of the development. They need to be updated / altered to adhere to the new standard. This is primarily for performance. However, with that being said. As each one comes up on our task list, we evaluate if the map also needs to be updated to the standards of our new outposts game play.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 948	Posted - 2013.09.18 02:27:00 - [5] - Quote Garth Mandra wrote: Ways to spend Dev time: 1. Update old maps. 2. Create new maps. Assuming it has to be one or the other I'd advocate for the second option. Currently it's both. Two new ones are in art production, and I am currently starting paper ideas for a updated Orbital Artillery SI Set.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 955	Posted - 2013.09.18 07:26:00 - [6] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: CCP LogicLoop wrote: Garth Mandra wrote: Ways to spend Dev time: 1. Update old maps. 2. Create new maps. Assuming it has to be one or the other I'd advocate for the second option. Currently it's both. Two new ones are in art production, and I am currently starting paper ideas for a updated Orbital Artillery SI Set. Awesome to hear; there does seem to be quite a bit amount of wasted space (occupied) on that SI I would like to see utilized. It's likely to go a much different direction. More so than Research, Production, and Cargo. I guess variety is the slice of life.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 970	Posted - 2013.09.22 00:29:00 - [7] - Quote The Amusing Ciderman wrote: Vespasian Andendare wrote: Is there any way to get a stronger racial identity? Honestly, outside the new map (and that's only because I know its Gallente), the other maps look very vanilla, "general sci-fi," without "feeling" like one race over the next.... I'd like stronger visual cues in Dust. It all feels much of the same... It just doesn't feel substantially different than the others... More green, silver, gold or rust for the racial maps, please! I mean, you're trying to create unique racial environments. SELL ME that these are dramatically different people with different ideals, design aesthetics, color palates, etc. This! And Vespasian I do not just stalk and follow you around the forums honestly. So far I have only read two of your posts and find myself just very strongly agreeing with them. I went in and tried 1.4 after your encouragement. And I like most of the improvements, especially the loss of shared sight. Makes it a very more sneaky game. However I only played a couple of matches because the maps just feel too similar. I imagine a lot of this is because of my exposure to the same maps over the Beta, but the more I look at them the more I think they just need more identity in every map. Are the current maps supposed to be specific racial maps? Remember that when it comes to terrain, and the static meshes that go on them... they should be as generic as possible in terms of what kind of structures go on them. We want the sockets to be more of the racial identifier since these are a big role in the PC battles. It's entirely possible the holder stuff, more specifically the Caldari... looks extremely generic to some people. The gameplay and layouts on the new terrains however are a lot different than older ones. Especially the two smaller areas. I would say the one inside the crater its self tailors more to our old giant vastness of space. I have some interesting ideas for the new OA. Something I want to talk to the artists about are doing a few ravines in it. Possible some man made caves. HIGHLY doubtful this will happen only because of possible time constraints and technical budgets. But I am pushing for more terrain use in this socket with a good mix of buildings around objectives and installations. It might actually end up feeling more like a few more mediums and smalls. Anyhow, this is still in PAPER designs. I am still just doodling on paper some layout ideas.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 985	Posted - 2013.09.23 00:19:00 - [8] - Quote Aero Yassavi wrote: So the socket would include a mixture of terrain and buildings? That would be very sweet. Especially if there was a ravine incorporated in it. Exactly. This is what we definitely try next. More seperation between the structures with terrain. Clump them more like a real life facility. See what comes of it. Feel free to toss in ideas. Just remember that I can't promise anything, and asking for something "new" in feature is probably not going to happen. So think about what currently exists.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 988	Posted - 2013.09.23 03:30:00 - [9] - Quote Zeylon Rho wrote: CCP LogicLoop wrote: Aero Yassavi wrote: So the socket would include a mixture of terrain and buildings? That would be very sweet. Especially if there was a ravine incorporated in it. Exactly. This is what we definitely try next. More seperation between the structures with terrain. Clump them more like a real life facility. See what comes of it. Feel free to toss in ideas. Just remember that I can't promise anything, and asking for something "new" in feature is probably not going to happen. So think about what currently exists. You've said before the basic restriction/way that sockets work is by keeping a certain minimum distance between the large structures - that's how the memory allocation or what-not works. On maps this seems to be necessarily a matter of horizontal space. Would it be possible to have flying/aerial platforms at a sufficient vertical distance such that they wouldn't interfere with the memory issues with land-bound platforms/sockets? Not really. Because the radius I speak of loads the entire sockets full details. For a large socket three levels of detail exist. It would not matter how high or low objects are in the socket. Once that threshold is passed the objects are loaded.