|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
|
CCP LogicLoop
C C P C C P Alliance
316
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 01:28:00 -
[1] - Quote
While I have only been here for about a year and a half, I can say that I know this map has been retired. It is very old and probably one of the original major things they had built. Over time with directional changes in gameplay, technical requirements, etc, I believe it was retired. Pieces of it were used as backdrop art in Plateaus.
Aeon Amadi wrote: 2.) Why do some maps have little or no interchangeable sockets?
Line Harvest, Ashland and Manus Peak are amazing examples of this. While Manus Peak might not be as bad (Alpha gets old pretty quick when it's the same thing over and over) Line Harvest and Ashland -never change at all-. At least, the playable areas. The only things that change in Line Harvest are the two sockets up north, one being a ground spawn and the other being... Nothing. There is another socket in the south as the ground spawn but let's be real here, unless you're Red Line, Line Harvest is going to be same game over and over.
The very three maps you mention were designed again before some more standards were set in how we use things. For example, Line Harvest and Ashland use many many static meshes. Actually far more than our current budget allows. The addition of sockets were added for starter bases later on. We made these maps work with a lot of optimizations that were very time consuming. We learned some lessons from these examples.
Aeon Amadi wrote:This brings me to another point.. http://www.gamedynamo.com/images/galleries/photo/1701/dust-514-mercenary-pack-screenshots-6.jpgHere you can see that Charlie and Delta have been replaced by the large overhanging structure that usually dominates those two points (orbital proof, no less). It's not much of a change but it's just enough to add some kind of variety - unfortunately, this isn't live and we're seemingly stuck with the same bland boring Line Harvest we always had. Which is interesting to me because I could have sword that same structure -WAS- a socket used in the other maps.
The object you must be referring to is what the community / players call the table top? That happens to be static placed in Line Harvest, but yes, it is used in a medium socket as well. As stated before, Line Harvest doesn't follow our current standard set up of sockets in gamemode areas.
Hand placed again. The bridge is a permanent fixture and not a socket. I hope that is the object you are referring to.
|
|
|
CCP LogicLoop
C C P C C P Alliance
316
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 03:05:00 -
[2] - Quote
Aero Yassavi wrote:CCP LogicLoop wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:This brings me to another point.. http://www.gamedynamo.com/images/galleries/photo/1701/dust-514-mercenary-pack-screenshots-6.jpgHere you can see that Charlie and Delta have been replaced by the large overhanging structure that usually dominates those two points (orbital proof, no less). It's not much of a change but it's just enough to add some kind of variety - unfortunately, this isn't live and we're seemingly stuck with the same bland boring Line Harvest we always had. Which is interesting to me because I could have sword that same structure -WAS- a socket used in the other maps. The object you must be referring to is what the community / players call the table top? That happens to be static placed in Line Harvest, but yes, it is used in a medium socket as well. As stated before, Line Harvest doesn't follow our current standard set up of sockets in gamemode areas. I actually believe he is talking about the trapezoidal building. Usually there is one over both C and D, but here there is only one that is in the middle of D and E. Oh and by the way, when that table top is used as an SI it doesn't have the ladders on it. Not sure if intentional or not. CCP LogicLoop wrote:Hand placed again. The bridge is a permanent fixture and not a socket. I hope that is the object you are referring to. Again, I believe he is referring to the fact that on Spine Crescent there is always the trapezoidal building at D and E but here we see the Consolidation Matrix in its place.
Those are two different buildings in each. In the second shot with the Consolidation Matrix, that game mode tends to use that medium socket alot.
The one used in Line Harvest is also static placed (most of Line Harvest is static, and not using sockets in the main gameplay area) and also is used in Medium Sockets.
For the table top socket, yes, no ladders, that was intended.
|
|
|
CCP LogicLoop
C C P C C P Alliance
317
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 05:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Zeylon Rho wrote:I'm quite positive I've never seen the "Consolidation Matrix" in either of the slots across from each other on the bridge. The Trapezoidal-sided buildings that are "C" and "D" on Line Harvest are the only buildings that have ever filled those sockets on either side of the "bridge".
Just your luck of the draw then on the random socket loads. The Matrix is set up to be used in that battleground. In fact when we initially started using that battleground, the consolidation matrix was the first set of sockets we used internally on a regular basis for that testing.
|
|
|
CCP LogicLoop
C C P C C P Alliance
317
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 05:01:00 -
[4] - Quote
Himiko Kuronaga wrote:If you moved the sockets closer together, tankers are going to have even larger issues than they already have. I would advise against that.
No one said they were moving sockets closer together. |
|
|
CCP LogicLoop
C C P C C P Alliance
318
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 07:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:Thank you for answering my questions though Logic, very disappointed to see the map concept in my first question be retired. In regards to the quote, perhaps it's a bug then because those trapezoidal-sided buildings (I'll go ahead and call them 'Warehouses' since they're often packed with trucks/cargo containers) are literally the ONLY sockets in Spine Crescent and that's not an isolated case. I've played every day since Uprising came out in May and I have never once seen anything different than the Warehouses dominating Delta and Echo. See here: http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/dust/news.control/64572/1/desert_at_dusk_940.jpg Yes, it is a good chance the balances on our backend are off on the loads of the Matrix. We can alter the odds of when something shows up. I will look into this.
Aeon Amadi wrote:On another topic, has there been any thought to changing Manus Peak / Line Harvest to being more variable? I'm sure the static meshes are going to be hell to get around but honestly it would do a lot of good as the northern team usually has a distinct advantage with those warehouses covering the objectives as they really are orbital proof. Infantry/tanks can use them as cover and once they're dug in they're almost impossible to get out. Northern team wins probably 75% of the time. As far as the little 'Spire' socket that was part of Crater Lake, it can also be seen in this screenshot on the right: http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/dust/news.control/63970/1/gallente_havs_940.jpg
Ahh, I see. That is just a staic placed model. It's a water tower. It's still used here and there. In sockets mostly.
Aeon Amadi wrote:If you'd permit, I have one more question to add: 6.) With higher player counts at some point in the future, any thought to linking maps/districts together? We see something akin to this in the E3 2012 video at the 1:45 mark where the camera races across Line Harvest to another area that's connected to the Orbital Artillery outpost: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN58mesUkkY
This video is around the transition of skirmish 1.0 to skirmish 2.0. At one time this is how that battlefield / gameplay area was set up. The MCC would travel to and dock with large socket at that location. When moving to skirmish 2.0 we removed that large socket back there (not to mention it was also a killer on performance with all the hand placed static meshes everywhere). |
|
|
CCP LogicLoop
C C P C C P Alliance
325
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 00:36:00 -
[6] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote: Interesting. I notice there's a lot of talk about static meshes and I'm just spit balling here as I honestly have very little experience with the matter but is there any way to reduce the LOD view distance on static meshes associated with the interior of the outposts? There's really not much difference until we're -WAY- out there (like, sniper rifle ranges) at which point the engine probably isn't rendering character models to begin with (450m is the maximum, so far as I know, though I have a screenshot of a 527m headshot using an ancient chinese secret). I know Simplygon is a wondrous tool when messing with Static Meshes/LOD but I'm not very familiar with the Unreal Engine. Again, just spit balling.
Edit: Actually, when you say performance are you talking performance on the client or...?
This would be a performance topic that a Technical Artist or Environment Artist would be more familiar with. From my own understanding though, we are at about the balance we need for LOD ranges. With potential for a bit more tweaking. I wouldn't expect any huge changes in that area.
Overall performance. But largely on the client. We are rendering a large highly detailed terrain, thousands and thousands of models, hundreds and hundreds of animations, particle effects, etc etc. Their is a lot being rendered.
Doyle Reese wrote: Will we ever see something similar to this concept again? Perhaps on a map without the static meshes?
Do you mean Skirmish 1.0? We want to do something similar to skirmish 1.0 in the future for sure.
Halador Osiris wrote: Would anyone go as far as to say the sockets will be moved farther apart? I've flown dropships since I started this game, and there really isn't a strong need for them. Nobody needs to be transported from A to B, so they're pretty much solely used to drag snipers and forge guns up onto towers, where they are promptly sent back.
I don't know if we would be moving them farther apart. Though we may have you go to larger battle areas in the future. These are things we are discussing. Our creative director also has a lot of plans. I am not fully apprised of what those are yet.
|
|
|
CCP LogicLoop
C C P C C P Alliance
325
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 02:25:00 -
[7] - Quote
On the topic of the Consolidation Matrix. After looking into it, I found out it was pulled out of the mix due to performance reasons. It has to go through an optimization pass. I expressed the sockets popularity and that level design will help all we can to get this back in there as soon as possible. |
|
|
CCP LogicLoop
C C P C C P Alliance
326
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 03:15:00 -
[8] - Quote
Zeylon Rho wrote:CCP LogicLoop wrote:On the topic of the Consolidation Matrix. After looking into it, I found out it was pulled out of the mix due to performance reasons. It has to go through an optimization pass. I expressed the sockets popularity and that level design will help all we can to get this back in there as soon as possible. Are there any other sockets intended to show up there? Since it's err... trapezoid-warehouse specific on Spine Crescent right now, but it's meant to be adjustable. Are there other sockets of that "size" intended to show up there at some point in the future? I seem to recall a more varied arrray showing up including that "trapezoid-warehouse" on Manus Peak in the 'B' position for instance. This would suggest to me that those are similar-sized sockets. However, Spine Crescent always has the trapezoid-warehouse socket as-is (at points D and E). The larger socket used for B and C actually changes.
It seems whats happening is really about whats budgeting with what. Some sockets are not optimal in some of the areas or with other sets. This is something we are fixing by doing optimization passes on everything.
Also wanted to clarify, the Matrix will show up in other game modes, but its been stopped from showing up in this particular Battleground. |
|
|
CCP LogicLoop
C C P C C P Alliance
326
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 03:47:00 -
[9] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:CCP LogicLoop wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote: Interesting. I notice there's a lot of talk about static meshes and I'm just spit balling here as I honestly have very little experience with the matter but is there any way to reduce the LOD view distance on static meshes associated with the interior of the outposts? There's really not much difference until we're -WAY- out there (like, sniper rifle ranges) at which point the engine probably isn't rendering character models to begin with (450m is the maximum, so far as I know, though I have a screenshot of a 527m headshot using an ancient chinese secret). I know Simplygon is a wondrous tool when messing with Static Meshes/LOD but I'm not very familiar with the Unreal Engine. Again, just spit balling.
Edit: Actually, when you say performance are you talking performance on the client or...?
This would be a performance topic that a Technical Artist or Environment Artist would be more familiar with. From my own understanding though, we are at about the balance we need for LOD ranges. With potential for a bit more tweaking. I wouldn't expect any huge changes in that area. Overall performance. But largely on the client. We are rendering a large highly detailed terrain, thousands and thousands of models, hundreds and hundreds of animations, particle effects, etc etc. Their is a lot being rendered. Thanks for answering this LogicLoop - best dev evar =P One more thing that's come up you might be able to help with: 7.) Any chance we could have a Map Feedback sub-forum in regards to Medium/Small sockets? Considering we had to tack a makeshift name for the Trapezoid-Warehouse it might be privy to give them some formal titles and provide images so that the playerbase can comment on them
Their is a significant number of smalls, and more to come, and eventually the numbers of Mediums are going to be large. Some current ones may get phased out.
I think what might be best for us to do is to use the outpost sub forum with our SI sets only. For example the upcoming research outpost has 2 mediums and 4 sockets that go with it. Since this is really our general "future" for large sockets. |
|
|
|
|