• Get Rid: Procedural Maps
    40 replies, posted
If you added a static map as an other option in the world.level (Currently: Procgen, hapis, savanas, barren and let's say add: static), it would give an option to servers owners to either go with a procgen or run the static version which would probably contain most, if not all of the monuments, a tiered layout and so on. Server owners who know their server isn't the quickest/strongest or that simply like the idea of having a static map, would probably like this option. The problem with scrapping procgen has been brought up many times in this thread and I would like to add to it: Randomness, feeling of freshness, prized locations and so on. Let's take the legacy map as an example, there were a few highly contested building areas where once a server wiped, most "serious" players would rush to, either to claim it for themselves or to grief it so no one else could have it. I.e: The "beach base" right under Coast Valley, the "bunker base" in the hangars at CIV mountain, the many "secret holes" only accessible from the top of Portugal mountain, the highly defensible position around Ressource hole, the hottest points on the "PvP heat map" in French valley, etc. Plus, procgen brings countless hours of exploring new terrain, always learning, getting an advantage as you play more, etc. My personnal opinion on the subject as a fairly experienced player (3.5k h, started before zombies<-rip zombies btw.) is that procgen should stay, it's an amazing feat that makes every wipe pretty much unique. P.s: I do see the argument of the navmesh and know it's a pain in the ass to deal with sometimes, but Helk and the boys/girls, are doing an amazing job so far. Pce
This was mainly what I was referring to with my earlier argument. In legacy, the best places were gone when the wipe started or were rapidly destroyed for the duration of a wipe. With a purely static map, that will happen again. I'd rather stick with procgen because of the random factor and the fact that it's more fun to deal with a new map. Otherwise we descend back into the same place as legacy with bases always being concentrated in one place.
Ultimately it's up to You guys. If you think it would benefit the game's development Then do it. The benefits would probably out weigh the cons. Pros. Better Performance. Better AI navigation. Terrain that makes sense. Glorious Rivers and Waterfalls. Areas of Intrest, Canyons, Underground Network possibly. Progressively larger map. Cons. No more random maps eventually leading to clans dominating hot spot areas.
big no. most of us enjoy weekly randomness
I genuinely prefer procedural maps, but if people could make their own maps, then I'm totally fine by it. I'd miss them, but it'd work.
Dear Garry, My group and me support you with this idea. We play Rust for many years and we absolutely loved legacy. We were like "hey, let's build in French Valley and build a little farmbase in Next Valley. We were searching better spots every wipe. Then, in another wipe, we went to lands where nowhere was. I think it was called Death Valley and besides some ores, there wasn't really much to farm. Still, it was a beautiful wipe for us. We were always near the action but this time we were able to chill a bit. My hope with non procedural maps is that you can edit the map so there are several "special" places. Let's say in the north is a large sunken ship with some boxes and stuff, I really wish then that you would add some PvE elements to get the loot. Overall, the PvE is what i miss these days in this beatiful game. You know, the lategame is nice and all but can getting boring after a while (usually you just go for sulfer and raids while maybe enlarge the own base continously). It would also help to interarc with other players and friends when the wipe happens or already happened. The grid is really nice you added lately to the map, but still you can be way more precise when you learn to know the map. I just see more potential for you polishing fix maps then doing some crazy stuff with procedural maps. Also caves and other things, you would be able to make them different from others in a better way etc.
I'm against it. I hate the power zergs have already and having preset maps would just idolize the best spots and they'd dominate it every wipe. Least with the new maps, no one knows what's really going on. Chaos is balance, tbh. The only 'guiding' signal you have is the monuments and I love that aspect.
We have Hapis for this, isn't it? I didn't liked Legacy because everything was same. Procedural maps are awesome and makes every wipe something really special IMO. Though it'll be nice if we'll be able to make own maps and then upload it to workshop, so they can be used at any servers. It will be really useful for players who has bad PC or wants to turn back in Legacy times.
Possibly not understanding how the coding works and just being an idiot, but garry touched on a great point of the maps loading clientside, reducing loading times through using the client loading the map over the generation. Does the client have the ability to simply download the map that has generated everytime there is a wipe (command to server "is this map correct" - yes "loadgame" - no "trigger download" - secondary command download new entities only), to allow the map to generate on the client as well as the server thus killing two birds one stone? Personally i Love a new map every wipe, simply for moment of looking for perfect base spot/layout and learning the the shape of the map, its new and exciting everytime and hey theres a barrel on the way!! Also being able to use the generator to build a map you want is also great, however broken it is (trial and error to see if all monuments are in and hard as hell to find one with launch/dome/Mtunnels/AirField in a 3500 seed) Buuuut Performance means everything =/ like everyone says catch 22
why do you have to generate the whole map at once? cant you load it cells by cells like in minecraft?
Please keep procedural maps. I love the idea of having to move and explore after wipes/updates.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.