DUST Search - new maps needed

Pokey Dravon wrote:

KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:

Generating the terrain itself (the heightmap) isn't rocket science isn't rocket science and not necessary manual work.
Lots of games utilise that without any designer interference (Minecraft is a popular example how code can generate terrain)

However, even though map devs might initially use terrain generation, they don't rely on that but tune them a lot by hand in order to make sure they work ok for gameplay balance.

I make a big claim:
Because we have so few maps so they HAVE to be tuned by hand - and because we HAVE to tune each map by hand, we cannot have more maps because of time/work limitations.

I say we are stuck in this loop. Unless something changes....? Wishful thinking...?

Of for sure, maps are generally created with a fractal engine to get a rough template, and then is hand sculpted. The reason you need to go in there manually is because 'random' terrain doesn't usually work for gameplay. I mean vertical cliffs can be easily generated, but sticking on in the middle of a map can lead to a ton of gameplay issues.

Map designers have to ask the question "How will gameplay play out on this section of terrain?" and modify the base to make sure that you can actually play a match on it without it being ********, especially in term of balance. So while maps can be generated procedurally much like they are in Minecraft, it will very often generate terrain which does not make for good gameplay.

People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1194	Posted - 2014.08.01 19:06:00 - [1] - Quote The biggest disappointment in Dust for me was that there was no procedurally generated terrain. That would've added an immense amount of replay value, and also take some edge of veteran player's superiority. As we don't have that, we still need new maps. I hereby request more! (and yes I know they take a lot of resources as CCP has to hand craft them. Sadface.) People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1194	Posted - 2014.08.01 19:08:00 - [2] - Quote Also, a big part of the disappointment for me was to realise there was Skim Junction/Iron Delta/one of those few on practically every frackin' planet on new eden!!!1!!1 People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1197	Posted - 2014.08.01 20:02:00 - [3] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Larry Desmo wrote: id like to know the average amount of districts per temperate planet and that shouldbe the number of new maps we need -2. every district slot on temperate planets should be different, not just subsections of one larger rmap, a whole 5k x 5k area Well a planet can have as many as 24, and I think as few as 4. Assuming standard deviation you're looking at an average of 14 districts a planet across new Eden. So you want 16 5km x 5km maps. That means you have 16, 25 square kilometer maps for a total of 400 square kilometers worth of maps. You could rougly fit the entire map from Skyrim into that space over 10 times. That's gonna cost...a lot. Generating the terrain itself (the heightmap) isn't rocket science isn't rocket science and not necessary manual work. Lots of games utilise that without any designer interference (Minecraft is a popular example how code can generate terrain) However, even though map devs might initially use terrain generation, they don't rely on that but tune them a lot by hand in order to make sure they work ok for gameplay balance. I make a big claim: Because we have so few maps so they HAVE to be tuned by hand - and because we HAVE to tune each map by hand, we cannot have more maps because of time/work limitations. I say we are stuck in this loop. Unless something changes....? Wishful thinking...? People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1198	Posted - 2014.08.01 20:37:00 - [4] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: Generating the terrain itself (the heightmap) isn't rocket science isn't rocket science and not necessary manual work. Lots of games utilise that without any designer interference (Minecraft is a popular example how code can generate terrain) However, even though map devs might initially use terrain generation, they don't rely on that but tune them a lot by hand in order to make sure they work ok for gameplay balance. I make a big claim: Because we have so few maps so they HAVE to be tuned by hand - and because we HAVE to tune each map by hand, we cannot have more maps because of time/work limitations. I say we are stuck in this loop. Unless something changes....? Wishful thinking...? Of for sure, maps are generally created with a fractal engine to get a rough template, and then is hand sculpted. The reason you need to go in there manually is because 'random' terrain doesn't usually work for gameplay. I mean vertical cliffs can be easily generated, but sticking on in the middle of a map can lead to a ton of gameplay issues. Map designers have to ask the question "How will gameplay play out on this section of terrain?" and modify the base to make sure that you can actually play a match on it without it being *******, especially in term of balance. So while maps can be generated procedurally much like they are in Minecraft, it will very often generate terrain which does not make for good gameplay. You are of course very correct. That's the same I wrote about 'ok for gameplay balance'. As we have only these few handful maps we are playing over and over again, they HAVE to be both sensible and equal for both teams. Dust would suck if all our 3-5 maps would be so horridly unbalanced that starting side would always dictate win/loss, especially after players acquinted themselves with the map. But my point is: IF we would have, say, ten thousand maps it wouldn't be gamebreaking if one side would happen to have better tactical starting side. In fact, that would be realistic and add a level of challenge for players to recognise the advantage - or miss it and not use it. If there are thousands of maps, no one minds if some are easier/harder as odds even themselves out. In PC that would make things so much more interesting, some districts being hard to defend and changing ownership a lot while some might be notoriously difficult to attack(!). Talk about adding the sense of 'being in New Eden'. People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change*
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1199	Posted - 2014.08.01 20:58:00 - [5] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: It's not just balance though, it leads to terrains that would make gameplay horrible, if not impossible such as objectives on hills too steep to climb or complexes half buried in a canyon. I just don't see how current random terrain generators could produce maps that would make for good gameplay 100% of the time. Remember that objectives are always on sockets. Sockets themselves are squarish areas on map where socket structures are placed. Having generation code create such squarish areas for sockets, or, code flatten the terrain as required for socket is not beyond techical limitations. People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1201	Posted - 2014.08.01 21:03:00 - [6] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: There are no map designers working on DUST. Source for that? Even though I am amongst those people who believe Legion is secretly focus all efforts and Dust is in terminal care and therefore believe that is the case, I still haven't seen any intel on map designers being shifted out - and I've been watching for that particular information. So, I'd like to see facts confirming our beliefs. People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1202	Posted - 2014.08.01 21:20:00 - [7] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Well that's true but if socket are randomly placed, that means you'll have a flattening algorithm running in potentially weird and awkward places, which leads to aesthetically awkward situations such as buildings being placed on the sides of mountains for no apparent reason. You need to consider "Why would there be a structure here" such as sticking a tower in a canyon doesn't make sense and looks stupid. I guess what I'm getting at is that you can't have completely random terrains, it still needs to follow some kind of template to an extent. EDIT: I love your signature btw. Whether generation code could create 'sensible enough' maps or not is something we cannot determine in our discussion here... v0v Maybe a map engineer somewhere around internet considers this and knows better People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change