|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Goric Rumis
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
104
   |
Posted - 2013.03.19 21:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
I posted this idea in the "Planetary Conquest Dev Blog" thread, but it's kind of its own idea:
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=617677#post617677
Given the volume of maps to be produced, my thinking is that map development could actually be sourced to the community. They would be developing only the landscapes and perhaps have limited ability to place certain structures, so there would still be some CCP involvement in designing each of the maps, in addition to the development of the testing functionality and the administration, selection, and iteration of maps, but it should be substantially lower than the involvement needed to develop a few thousand individual maps.
All the maps would have to be playtested, of course, but that could be done in a sort of "map testing" mode that would allow you to play matches on player-developed maps. For these maps, I think the risks associated with losing would have to be nullified, in case it turns out the map is inherently imbalanced.
I think offering at least several hundred different base map designs would improve the experience of the game substantially, and I can't see how to scale that unless the community is somehow involved in building the maps.
Thoughts? |
Goric Rumis
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
104
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 19:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
I'm really thinking about the layout of the landscape. You could theoretically have a computer-generated landscape for every battlefield, but is that going to yield balance, variety, etc., let alone dramatic visual styling that's been so important in EVE?
There are probably other solutions (one that comes to mind: allowing players on certain planets to choose their battlegrounds on a massive, randomly-generated landscape, and pulling out the battlegrounds that players like or seem to be effective).
My point is, when we're talking about potentially tens of thousands of different battlegrounds, I would want a substantial amount of variety from planet to planet and from battleground to battleground, more than we'll get from a dozen or two dozen maps that have visual tweaks and varying installations. One effective way of doing that would be to allow players to develop maps. |
Goric Rumis
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
108
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 18:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
Halador Osiris wrote:I think this idea of "map balance" is absolutely stupid. If (in the real world) I brought potentially billions of dollars in infrastructure / human capital / etc. to a planet and KNEW somebody would come and try to take it from me some day, I would set my structures up in the most tactical way possible. I'd invest money in having private contractors come in and figure out what setup will give the enemy the least potential advantage. Battle isn't balanced, battle is about using what you've got to put yourself ahead of the enemy in every way possible.
That argument would be all fine and good if this were the real world. But it isn't.
1. You can't choose the direction from which you're going to attack an installation. So you're giving the defenders an ostensibly "real-world" advantage while depriving the attackers of a similar advantage. Of course, people building defenses will try to put them in a place that either forces a line of attack, or in which nearly every line of attack is equally disadvantaged. But that doesn't mean the attacker is deprived of any ability to choose an approach.
2. This is a game with rules that are unlike the real world. In the real world, you can't possibly make a position that is literally impossible to capture, but in this game it's absolutely possible. Even if a map isn't perfectly balanced, it needs to be balanced enough that a district will be in play.
3. Maps don't necessarily have to be balanced between attacker and defender, but they need to be balanced between maps. Meaning that one map shouldn't be a beast to attack, while the next map is virtually impossible to defend.
4. Maps should not, in themselves, be a force multiplier. Meaning that you can't have a map that's so unbalanced that 8 defenders can fight off 30 attackers of equal skill, or that 12 attackers can devastate twice as many defenders of equal skill. Even if the imbalance is accounted for in the number of attackers and defenders (e.g., only 8 defenders are allowed but 24 attackers), it will cause overall game imbalance problems down the road that aren't specific to the map.
So I believe we do need to be concerned about balance. |
Goric Rumis
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
114
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 00:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
Buster Friently wrote:Vaerana Myshtana wrote:However, CCP has said that for the time being, the heightmaps (terrain mesh) for the maps has to be crafted by hand.
I agree with the OP that CCP should make a map maker program available (even if it's just Windows or something) and let members of the community submit basic map templates:
Heightmap
Texture painting
Socket (building slot) placement
Name Except that the op's argument stems from the idea that the maps are unbalanced. The maps aren't supposed to be balanced and will likely become even more unbalanced as players contribute to their own "home turf". To the poster further down - maps are most definitely force multipliers and should remain so. Knowing the terrain has been a force multiplier in any real world conflict, and should be a significant factor in Dust district combat.
The idea doesn't "stem from" a concern for balance, it's an idea to help generate a large number and variety of maps that could be used in game. More than balance, I'm concerned about generating maps that are interesting to play and aesthetically striking, which has a much better chance of coming out of a human designer than a random generator.
I don't think I'm conveying the concept of "balance" very well. The map shouldn't be a force multiplier in the sense that one side may simply happen to have the good fortune of its base being in the right place, and therefore can overwhelm the opposition with lesser numbers just because of where it started. You should have to make tactical decisions to secure points on the map. I would love to see maps crafted where the tactical points didn't always have particular landmarks (such as installations or null cannons), but simply provided tactical superiority. Providing a terrain advantage out of the gate is what should be prevented.
I also want to clarify that players shouldn't be able to set the district (or even the planet) where a map is placed. This would discourage players from trying to engineer the territory they hold to their own advantage. |
Goric Rumis
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
117
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 07:13:00 -
[5] - Quote
Vaerana Myshtana wrote:Not what I read at all. The OP's suggestion stems from the fact that CCP came right out and said that the heightmaps WILL be created by hand. CCP firmly stated that terrain mesh and socket placement will not be procedural.
The OP is simply asking for us to get a crack at helping to expand the pool of maps through crowd sourcing so that we aren't fighting different flavors of Manus Peak on every stinking planet.
Thank you, yes. Although I'm sensing a lack of enthusiasm about the topic at this point. |
|
|
| |
|