DUST Search - new maps needed

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

new maps needed

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2592	Posted - 2014.07.31 22:10:00 - [1] - Quote I hope you guys understand how morbidly expensive it takes to create assets like maps, and how unwilling CCP is to spend the money to do that for Dust.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2607	Posted - 2014.08.01 02:01:00 - [2] - Quote Larry Desmo wrote: like that map they had in that legion video wasnt a ported dust map, making a new map isnt hard nor doesit cost an arm and a leg. i doubt its even 2 full months of work, id even buy aurmif they make a new map as would alot of others. quit being a legion suck up and demand dust content No matter how much you demand, it doesn't mean you'll get what you want. CCP upper management (you know, the ones who pays the developers) are not going to spend that much money on Dust content. I'm not a "Legion Suck Up", I'm being realistic.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2607	Posted - 2014.08.01 02:23:00 - [3] - Quote Larry Desmo wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Larry Desmo wrote: like that map they had in that legion video wasnt a ported dust map, making a new map isnt hard nor doesit cost an arm and a leg. i doubt its even 2 full months of work, id even buy aurmif they make a new map as would alot of others. quit being a legion suck up and demand dust content No matter how much you demand, it doesn't mean you'll get what you want. CCP upper management (you know, the ones who pays the developers) are not going to spend that much money on Dust content. I'm not a "Legion Suck Up", I'm being realistic. im pretty sure thats how eve players do it , just keep demanding maby unsub for a while. i dont know about you but my 5 eve accounts havent been subbed in a while and i deffinatly wont be to turning them back on anytime soon. Alright, unsub from your Dust account then to...oh wait..
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2607	Posted - 2014.08.01 02:34:00 - [4] - Quote If you want to get SP faster so you can unlock stuff sooner?
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2616	Posted - 2014.08.01 19:38:00 - [5] - Quote 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.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2623	Posted - 2014.08.01 20:08:00 - [6] - Quote Larry Desmo wrote: thanks for doing the math, id gladly buy aurm or resubcribe an eve account to help make them and im sure others would also. and 14 more whole maps created at a pace of 1 map every 3 months equals 42 months of map making, thats about how long it should be before dust should make a transition to ps4 and pc, and work on maps for a new planet type should begin. Right but my point being that "More Maps" doesn't necessarily make for a better game. Sure it adds for some variety and immersion, but there is more to a game that that. Map generation on that level would cost so much to produce that it would take away resources from other aspects of the game development, especially in the case of Dust where the financial support they have is so low. Its a balancing act between fixes and adding features, as well as adding the content that brings diversity, such as more maps. For me the question I ask is "Given X budget, what can we do this month that will give us the biggest increase to the quality of the game." Now admitidly I don't know the exact budget but I know its low, and I don't know the exact cost of creating a new map or the cost of releasing a new patch via PSN, but I know its high. So the question I have to ask is, would you be willing to wait 6 months of NOTHING happening because all resources are being pumped into the production and deployment of a single map? Or would you prefer they focus on cheap and easy fixes that improve the quality of the game drastically and can be implemented monthly? At least in the immediate future.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2623	Posted - 2014.08.01 20:23:00 - [7] - Quote 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.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2624	Posted - 2014.08.01 20:53:00 - [8] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: 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. 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.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2624	Posted - 2014.08.01 21:08:00 - [9] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: 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 technical limitations. 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.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2627	Posted - 2014.08.01 21:32:00 - [10] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: 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 Well one thing to consider (Im not a game designer but I deal with design of earthwork quite a bit) is the idea of "Terrain Sockets" where there is essentially a gridwork of sockets that can have certain variations of a similar terrain but the edges either match up regardless of the variant. There would need to be rules about which variants can exist in each socket, as not to cause gameplay issues, but if the rules about what can be adjacent to what are properly designed early on, I could see it working out. If they wanted to get fancy they could make variations that dont line up but the edges will blend together given the slope and elevation at that edge. I also think the ability to drop our own installations and have them actually persist after the battle would also not only add some random elements to the map, but allow for more player customization and interaction, and really hammers in that sense of persistency. Also thoughts on allowing players to move locations of objectives on controlled districts? Number of cannons would remain consistent but you would have say 8 places to stick 5 cannons, and customize objective location to fit your team's playstyle. This if of course far from a possibility in Dust, but Legion perchance?

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.