| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lady MDK
Kameira Lodge
Amarr Empire
302
   |
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
It is a well known fact that some maps look intended to be joined together. You can look over the edge of one map and actually see another map is loaded up and sitting there.
The question being if all the maps are loaded at once why can we not have a gametype where we play across an entire battlegroud instead of just one little bit of it? This would bring transporting soldiers from battle to battle into the game and allow ambushes to occur naturally.
We have seen games with massive seemless maps on the ps3 so we know its not the hardware.
Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following.
I don't care so neither should you :)
|
CELESTA AUNGM
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
428
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
I think "a large map landscape" or "many building-maps joined together into one battle map" WAS, and maybe still IS, the intention that CCP has with Dust.
The maps used in Planetary Conquest matches are HUGE (so huge the players report that getting across the map to engage someone quickly, is part of the challenge in Planetary Conquest combat).
But the bigger the map, the more the lagging problem seems to occur. And you are right, it's NOT the PS3 console, but it may be an incompatibility problem between Sony's Network Hardware and CCP's Network Hardware. It's something we players can't help them with.
I understand that EVE-Online players "create" their planetary facilities by plopping in sockets such as "the Launchpad", "The Control Center", "the Ore Extractior". This is probably why you've noticed that everything in Dust looks like it's so ready to just snap-together with the next socket and get bigger and bigger.
I just wish it were that easy for CCP to doGǪ
So far, the technology just isn't smoothed out yet.
Universe of good wishes for the 49, especially CCP Eterne...
No story can have life without writers and publishers.
|
Avallo Kantor
473
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
Basically maps on DUST are 5km x 5km max size, with numerous points for "Sockets" to be placed.
There are small, medium, and large sockets, with some parts of the map hosting their own structures (such as the train map)
In effect, we cannot do a "full" map because:
1) It would be too big for a 16 v 16 player team to cover everything easily
2) Strain on hardware
So instead they break these 5 x 5 km maps into the maps you know and love today, with each map in game being a small part of that larger map. Because the maps are so large, there are numerous areas that could form fully made maps (with all the sockets on them) and this is what leads to the "puzzle" like structure of many maps fitting together.
When you are on Map A, Maps B, C, D, and E are 'there' on the terrain map, they just have no sockets placed on them, and are hidden behind kms of red line. |
Avallo Kantor
473
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:09:00 -
[4] - Quote
Going a bit further into this concept, you may have noticed that some maps are effectively identical in location but with different buildings.
This is the socket system at work. Each socket point can hold a corresponding-sized socket, and they can be 'freely' swapped out. This gives any terrain area a number of different configurations using sockets to create new "maps" for players to play on.
The original intent was that with enough sockets / map terrains you could, for the cost of say ... 5 maps... create thousands of unique map configurations for players, giving massive variance to what maps you might play on. |
Lady MDK
Kameira Lodge
Amarr Empire
303
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
I do understand the sockets yes. But the idea of bigger maps would give some vehicles more purpose (dropships for example).
Imagine a skirmish over a larger area where you could actually capture a point then have to proceed by escorted dropship with lavs scouting to the next point. Imagine being the defender and trying to ambush the endmy while travelling. And these maps are loaded and there so its not down to hardware. Destiny does far bigger maps on the ps3 and has a basic nps ai (yes i know its an awfull game).
As the owner of a district maybe your buildings could even have jump portals to get your guys there to defend. Also longer battles to make pc and fw less like a pub match with a different reward.
Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following.
I don't care so neither should you :)
|
Avallo Kantor
476
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lady MDK wrote:I do understand the sockets yes. But the idea of bigger maps would give some vehicles more purpose (dropships for example).
Imagine a skirmish over a larger area where you could actually capture a point then have to proceed by escorted dropship with lavs scouting to the next point. Imagine being the defender and trying to ambush the endmy while travelling. And these maps are loaded and there so its not down to hardware. Destiny does far bigger maps on the ps3 and has a basic nps ai (yes i know its an awfull game).
As the owner of a district maybe your buildings could even have jump portals to get your guys there to defend. Also longer battles to make pc and fw less like a pub match with a different reward.
Again it boils down to 2 core reasons:
1) Technical issues: Adding more sockets means more computations, and slower performance. The more sockets that are added, the worse the game gets performance wise. Some sockets (such as the Gallente Labs) are more intensive than others and can cause their own problems, especially for PC.
and
2) Countless Sandbox games have shown us that space for the sake of space often makes for poor design. Being "Large" doesn't make an experience more epic, it makes it require more movement and time to get to action. If anything, large open areas (without modifying player counts) decrease player fun, as there is less happening per area of map, and that means you are wasting resources without adding fun.
Further on this point, when factoring in point 1, you can only have these larger maps if you strip them of Sockets. This would look... bad. Unfinished. The Devs aren't going to spend extra time to make their game look -less- polished and finished, and people would be well in their right to complain.
A lot of the more successful and engaging experiences DUST has made was through the use of relatively tight battle fields, where even "long" (as in 100 meter open areas) distances were surrounded by interesting things to use for cover / ground.
A "large" battlefield might be good for a few maps (and they do exist), but creating even larger maps (even 1km by 1km ) would needlessly stretch things out with no real benefit to the players. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |