• Get Rid: Procedural Maps
    41 replies, posted
  • Avatar of garry
  • What do you guys think of the idea to no longer procedural maps? Pros: Loading (much) Faster Less memory Perform Better (occlusion) Smarter AI Map can be improved incrementally Map layout doesn't change so players can learn it We don't spend more time making a procedural map generator Cons: Finite amount of maps (probably one or two) What do you think? Would you miss procedural maps if we got rid?
  • I think this might be beneficial for performance however the generator still has time to optimize maps and possible help with AI. So what a few wolves are floating once every wipe, that’s just something gamers deal with already. Also, as soon as everyone knew the map they would learn advantages that could be game-breaking unless the map is made correctly. It’s something that should be tested by players first before implemented however.
  • Avatar of Psystec
  • What if we get a new map every month. servers will have the same map but it changes each forced wipe to keep it interesting. Part of the thrill is not knowing what map you gonna get each month. So basically, i'm against it.
  • Avatar of Sunrise
  • An enjoyable factor in Rust is new maps. What about just flipping them / taking 4 sections and merging them if possible. Would be faster than generating an entire new map and wouldn't limit maps to 1 or 2. A new generated map every month might be nice instead of completely limiting to 1 or 2. The map would get stale very quickly, people always building in the same spots ect.
  • Avatar of garry
  • The way I envisioned it was that we'd create a procedural map, then bake it, then work on it by hand. Every month (or wipe) we'd ship a new iteration of that map. It always seemed to me that people preferred legacy's map because they had learned it. It wasn't a better map technically, they just missed that they'd spent the time to learn the map and we'd taken that away.
  • Avatar of Psystec
  • This is also true but the fact is you will always have people voting for both sides no matter the benefits. If we had a choice of 2 maps i would still play the game as normal even though it was not my preferred choice. I actually don't give a shit, do what you guys think is best! Performance seems to be a priority over 9999999 maps anyway.
  • Avatar of Dradiinmmo
  • I love the idea of reducing lag and loading bloat. I also think that you could balance the noob to pro areas better than how they are right now. It is rather jarring to have an entire 1/2 of the map ignored because of the way the procedural process sets up monuments. Yes Hand crafted maps will take sometime to iron out problems, but it will end up assisting in debugging. Maybe having 5 maps on a rotation would alleviate some of the repetition players might feel ?
  • I have to say that I'm against the removal of procedural maps. I spent a lot of time in legacy and learned the map, but the problem I always saw was the best places to build were pretty much gone when the wipe started. I missed it at first, but having spent a while on procedurals, I have to say that it's more fun when you don't know what's next. It's interesting to see where the monuments are to eachother and where biomes are, so you never build in the same place twice. I could build in the north every wipe and I'll have a different experience every time. In regards to map size, while I understand where you're coming from garry with the massive maps, I don't know how I'd feel about that. Partly because you have to keep smaller servers in mind. A smaller server will never have any interaction between players with a massive map, and the map size can also cause problems with travel times. Even with the potential of vehicles being added, a large map will cause issues with travel times from one place to another. Even on some of the smaller maps we have now, running a quarter-a third of the way across it can take 10-15 minutes. On a massive map, moving on foot would be difficult and overly tedious, so that can also lead to player density issues. If we stick with the current system of monuments, many areas of a large map will be sparcely populated with loot, meaning areas around the large monuments such as launch site and military tunnels will be covered in bases, while anything around that may just be a barren wasteland. Even now, it is not uncommon to see a third of the map have nothing on it because it has no monuments or even roads sometimes. In fact, I rarely see a large number of people in the snow unless launch site is up there. So I am against the removal of procedural maps. While I understand why you would think of removing them, I find it more interesting and fun to have a new map every wipe and can see many problems with a single map, especially if it is massive.
  • Avatar of Dradiinmmo
  • Technically, the way Garry explained it they are not getting rid of them they are using Procedural as the monthly starter, then it will be that map till the next wipe. At least that's how i read it, maybe i am wrong ?
  • Avatar of Rush
  • Catch 22 Garry as there are benefits and downers to both it would appear. Performance and optimization over everything imo. At the same time, some of us (probably a fraction of a %) need on wipe day that choice to be able to bring something different to the table. You mentioned the Legacy Map. Your statement is probably true in that people got used to it and when it got taken away they "say" they missed it. But just like every iteration of this game, we adjusted and adapted and eventually we got used to it. However on Legacy,the actual Map was marginal at best when it came to actual "play". 45 minutes around the entire road? Then, there were the aspects of the outer rim. Nothing was there. True, areas like hackers and resource valley were very cool, It just seems so much more alive with Procedural. Side note as well. I have a voting system in place for players two weeks out. It is one of the most constant active threads on our forum. We ask the player base if they want a different map when the wipe occurs as well any suggestions for Seed/Size. This obviously seems important to the player base so we encourage it. Not sure how much influence something like that is in this instance,but it is on some players side. I guess it would appear I am leaning on the side of Procedural. However I am a total proponent for optimization in any form and feel it should lead the way.
  • From the way I understand it, they'd make one procedural map and tweak it a bit every month. The map would be fundamentally the same.
  • Avatar of Klee
  • You should never use the same maps every wipe. The game gets boring and predictable. There should always be a change in the map so that nobody can learn where the best spots are and use them everytime again. I would love MONTHLY MAPS. That way they would have all the benefits you mentioned and there is still change. The maps would maybe also be more balanced and less bugged.
  • I personally enjoy the procedural maps due to the fact that people can't just memorize and know where everything on the map will be. However, I run on a potato so sometimes it takes me 10-15 minutes to just load into a game.  Would it be possible to set up some kind of grid system where you could have say.. 10x10 map, with each block loading on say 1 of 10 'crafted' squares'. So it would have to build everything like it does now. Make it so those squares are randomly placed on the grid on the map each wipe. So say you have 10 'crafted squares', all slightly different in their own way, but placed randomly about the grid. Squares might be the same every map, but relocated so that players can't simply know the map by heart. If loading the whole map is such a resource hog, maybe perhaps loading 'chunks' would be less resource intensive. The numbers were obviously just thrown in there to get an idea of what I'm trying to get across. I'm not really against the idea of getting rid of the procedural maps, so long as there is still an element of randomization to the maps. Large groups would recognize the most beneficial locations on a static map and then swarm and build to dominate from that location every time.
  • Avatar of shaieve
  • I totally agree on doing that, garry, I'd just hope it wouldn't somewhat ruin the map.
  • why not both? maybe invest time in creating this huge baked map that perform better and leave the current procedural maps as it is and let people decide what to play but have only one static map so peaple can learn it
  • Stick the game on a cheap SSD and the game loads in seconds. No need to have the same map everytime imho. Isn't that just taking time away from you guys that you could be working on more features an content for the game rather than having to work on a new map every month. I don't like the sound of that garry. From a new player to rust
  • Avatar of Crayz
  • If you dump procedural maps you should come up with a map editor.
  • Avatar of Chevleon
  • You can abandon Procgen if you make the map big as planetside 2's Indar. that should be big enough for vehicles, multiple players, Island battles. and giant monuments.
  • Avatar of shaieve
  • Wait, lets say If you really got rid of the Procedural Map and put back the legacy map would the buildings like Launch and other shit be in it?
  • Avatar of Corrosion Hour
  • So a lot of people complain about the loading times of maps, but seriously, your complaints are going to skyrocket when people play the same exact maps over and over, after they've had procedural generation. I think your pros/con list is showing some personal bias of not having to deal with the pain of procedural map generation. Keep in mind, the challenge of being the ones BUILDING a game like no other is what attracts gamers to you. It's truly something special. I know I'd personally be sad as hell to see it go. I'm more terrified to see a hybrid approach take place than anything.
  • I honestly think you should only do this for early access, whilst working on the procedurally generated map in the background for when the game launches. Personally, if it helps you guys out in the long run to develop something better, i'd take the sacrifice as long as its not permanent. Especially when half of the stupid complaints are off of bugs that are suppose to be there when implementing a new version of something. With that being said, the only real issue i have with the maps is the fact that they feel too congested -- bugs or no bugs. Rust use to have a feeling of sparsity. You've guys worked on diversity but forgot the sparsity. Seeing your post above shows that you recognize this issue, but there still needs to be a solution. Seeing as you're working on 'tiers', i think the game needs to be centered around tiers -- or it shouldn't be in at all. So maybe to work around smaller communities, you make the map size in tiers - whilst still having the factors it needs. This would also work with the way generation is working now. There's a tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 section. If you could balance those 'sections' out whilst having an option of having a tier 1, tier 2, or tier 3 sized map... i think that would be a temporary fix until better ideas come about.
  • Might be stupid or impractical, but could you have it where people who host the servers choose between a procedural or pre-made map?
  • Considering how sometimes 30% map is useless without any road/monuments , it would be a nice change if we have monuments distributed evenly throughout the map. If you check the map on London Staging now , Dome and Launch Site are like brothers. Military tunnel can be walled off if a clan decides to do so. There's no monuments/road in the east , the whole area is empty
  • Avatar of Psystec
  • I thought about this a while after my first post and I could see the potential for a static map regardless of the performance improvements. The Devs would be able to modify everything in detail and not just modify something in hopes that it would be accurate on all maps. We would definitely receive a lot of map changes after each wipe, making it not so static each month and the locations to build bases would be balanced in regards to the tier of item drops. The tunnels has the potential to be larger and all the tunnels can be different then. (maybe a system for players to travel underground safer from one location to another ) My only concern is how big would the static map be... like a 150/200 player server and a 3500 map size would be too small. So if the static maps had like different sizes it would be great. Extra Small, Small, Medium, Large maps and like 3+ variants of the sizes would still be OK because you still wont know which map you get after a wipe.
  • Procedural maps are awesome. They give much needed variance within the game and offer different opportunities each wipe. If there were no procedural maps then people would continuously build the same bases in the same spots, mine the same areas, run the same route etc etc etc Just like they do in Ark or miscreated. If you don't like variance.... Play hapis. Problem solved. Easy.
  • Avatar of Pralimos
  • I agree with most of the people here. I like the randomness. I feel like if Rust had a finite map then people would be rushing to get those sweet spots which would result in more pvp, which I would mind to be honest. I guess the only con with it is loss of randomness honestly. anyway I personally don't care because whether or not there is a finite map I'll still play Rust just as much as I do now lol.
  • Avatar of Prost
  • The procedural map has some advantages as a more casual (~6 hours a week) player. When I settle an area, I am likely to know it better than someone who just travels to my location to raid or hunt me. I know where I can hide, or that there is a cave around the corner to hide in. In static map, the more hardcore players would always know my area better than me, because they had every inch of the map memorized, and I had only actually seen maybe a third of it. They'd know the more beneficial resource areas from the start, giving them a significant defacto advantage, in addition to their skill and systems advantages. Each wipe would feel far more static, since the "best" areas were well known, and for a casual/solo player, building anywhere else just put me at a disadvantage. With procedural maps, analyzing the map regions for efficiency is a skill, and every game feels very dynamic. I never know what areas will end up highly trafficked or settled. When I do (rarely) travel the map, I am both discovering new geography, and how players have chosen to establish on it. It depends on your target demographic, but coming from someone who is a casual player, and plays typically with completely new players I've evangelized, the procedural map is a boon.
  • Avatar of John Hurst
  • What about having it as a modular map? So it is still pre-designed but to mix it up they can be rearranged or swapped in with other pieces. This would satisfy the people who want procedural. But has the pros of what you mentioned. Maybe have each modular piece focus on a major radtown to make it easier. This could link to all roads being connected to hotspots. And to even further help randomize it you can switch certain things around within asegment every now & then. Like positioning of a building or direction it is facing. For e.g you would play & have a cave exit facing the sun but next wipe it would be opposite. Maybe even flip the whole segment sometimes.