Author Topic: Muse should prioritise what?  (Read 1864 times)

Offline Arturo Sanchez

  • Member
  • Salutes: 119
    • [AI]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • My spaghetti channel
Muse should prioritise what?
« on: September 12, 2016, 09:50:06 am »
Should they fix what they currently got?

king of the hill
crazy king
death match (meta)
vip
UI/lobby/custom options/optimisation

Or keep making new content that is still just as unfinished if not more so?

Offline Solidusbucket

  • Member
  • Salutes: 93
    • [SkBo]
    • 29 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Muse should prioritise what?
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2016, 01:09:39 pm »
Fix the rules of the game modes and keep making new content.


Offline Atruejedi

  • Member
  • Salutes: 64
    • [❤❤❤]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Muse should prioritise what?
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2016, 01:12:35 pm »
Should they fix what they currently got?

An obvious yes.

Quote
king of the hill

Give us 3 vs. 3 Labyrinth and I'd be happy. And a 3 vs. 3 Northern Fjords KOTH could be neat as well (since it's actually a relatively open map until you're around The Gun, unlike Desert Scrap and Labyrinth, which are quite cramped).

Quote
crazy king

I think Crazy King is fine, despite sometimes having some relatively unfair initial spawns.

Quote
death match (meta)

This is what needs the most work. A slightly increased map variety (Paritan 4 vs. 4, which is coming, but other 3 vs. 3 map conversions would be nice) and a rebalance to Mobula and Spire would please me enough.

Quote
vip

The fixed VIP is coming on the 19th and I am looking forward to it greatly! (15 point threshold, 1 point for escort kills, 3 points for VIP kills, 5 points for VIP-on-VIP kills; so, essentially, the same scoring system as now, except no more Chickensquid antics, less suicides, and fleets will have to stick together).

Quote
UI/lobby/custom options/optimisation

So much this. Ugh. I consider GOI the least optimized game I've ever played.

Quote
Or keep making new content that is still just as unfinished if not more so?

Skyball has the potential to be an okay distraction from other game modes, but it really should be the absolute last thing they work on...

Offline Schwalbe

  • Member
  • Salutes: 177
    • [ψ꒜]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Muse should prioritise what?
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2016, 01:19:06 pm »
I've seen two 4v4 this summer. Soooooo yeeeaaaah.

Offline Naoura

  • Member
  • Salutes: 25
    • [Sass]
    • 31 
    • 45
    • 32 
    • View Profile
Re: Muse should prioritise what?
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2016, 03:18:42 pm »
Being the lowest level individual to comment, I assume to be ignored. Nonetheless, I will toss my hat into the ring.

For a pure, straight focus for the time being, I would say optimization. Fixing the game modes is extremely important, and I'm glad to hear that the VIP changes are in the pipe, but focusing on optimization after the Alliance release should be Muse's first priority.

More maps would be beautiful, more game modes would be fantastic, and fixing what's already there is just common sense, but you can't branch out if the trunk is rotting away from under you. Cleanig up the UI and making optimisation easier or more extensive  should probably be their focus.

Offline Hoja Lateralus

  • Member
  • Salutes: 135
    • [ψ꒜]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 23 
    • View Profile
Re: Muse should prioritise what?
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2016, 04:42:55 pm »
Quote
UI/lobby/custom options/optimisation
So much this. Ugh. I consider GOI the least optimized game I've ever played.

Do you want to know a dirty secret? Optimalisation always comes as a last part of developement cycle, when the game is finished.
And GOIO is never finished. It's like that one street that has always something happening on it, somebody is replacing the pavement, street gets narrowed down, then broaden up again, one lane is tore apart due to some leak of a gas pipe below and we're keep getting promised how awesome it will be when all the work is done. Well, it's never going to be done, and we're keep on driving on that one lane that is suprisingly untouched (yet) and cursing under our noses. But more people decide to avoid the street whatsoever, and they surely have reasons for it.

I'd say number one thing would be to drop Alliance developement (for now?) so they have any resources for Skirmish updates ;]
And before doing anything they should have a reaaaallly long THINK about what is not working in their game, why they keep on losing population, why practically everyone loses before hitting 500 matches rank and where to even start cleaning this mess. I think Muse is sometimes just wasteful, for instance think about how many times the interface have been changed and how people reacted. Remember when people rioted to fire the interface guy? And we know it's going to change again, because Alliance. At the same time, still no maps, which is like number one complaint I think.
Oh, and fix the Duuuuhhhhrrrns please.

Offline Richard LeMoon

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 284
    • [Muse]
    • 33 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Muse should prioritise what?
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2016, 04:53:02 pm »
First, you have to understand the team make up.

In the last game project I worked on, I was one of the lead lore and quest writers (I personally wrote over 100,000 words). Since it was a story intense game, we had a rather large team of writers. We were also the event writers and runners. There was a sound guy, a few artists, and a 3D guy (sometimes), and an animator once in a.... hmmm... I don't recall ever meeting an animator. Then there were the coders. All two of them. They would change the way the quest coding and syntax worked on occasion to add new features, which would generally break all previously written quests.

The game was an unoptimized mess of bugs holding hands using an outdated engine being produced by a completely different team.

When it came to updates, we obviously had plenty of writing to put in. Quests had to go through the coders first to make sure they worked. Books and things were much more easy, and just plugged in. So, occasionally there would be a glut of books and some big events that would happen. Some people were happy about it, others bitched.

"Why the hell are you working on books and events when [bla bla bla] does not work, it crashes on any [brand] GPU, [this this and that] quest do not work, and the animations SUCK!?! But hey, that concept art is sweet!"

So, really, my first question would be "Who is on the team, and what are their areas of expertise?"

Optimization is important, takes a long time, but is tedious and lacks content updates. Artists, and writers can not help here. 3D and animation can to some extent. There would be no perceived game progress while this was in process.

Art and models content updates take a lot of the art and animation department time, some audio, a lot of coding if there are new mechanics (which is why I am stressing more guns in existing classes) and little writing.

Map updates, from what I am told, are complicated and take more time from coding, and a lot of time from 3D art. I have not been personally shown how they make them (yet). Streamlining the process of making maps (tools and easy integration into the game and UI) would take a lot of code time (meaning no updates or optimization for a long while), but would make future additions of map content come fast with possible Workshop integration. However, there would seem to be a HUGE amount of nothing going on while these tools were built.

Game mode updates take a lot of code time, some 3D art and writing, and a lot of balance work.

So, copious amounts of coding is required for almost all updates. The only thing that does not take too much code time is written content. However, your writers, artists, animators, and audio people can not contribute much in that area. So, anything the coders focus on that does not involve their areas will leave them idle.



It is a tough issue to tackle. What the game needs and what players need are often two very different things.







Offline Schwalbe

  • Member
  • Salutes: 177
    • [ψ꒜]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Muse should prioritise what?
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2016, 05:34:47 pm »
They would change the way the quest coding and syntax worked on occasion to add new features, which would generally break all previously written quests.

Fucking amateurs.

*Takes the crucifix*
*Spills this cursed filth with holy water*

Sorry, I'm a gamedev coder, amateur, true, but I've grown up enough not to touch a fucking compiler before planning and setting the ENTIRE fucking structure of code. You set up the premiss, you set up the systems you'll need, you set up the basic features and behaviors and then choose appropriate fucking design patterns so you can expand your features without rebuilding the fucking code.

*Facepalm*


Sorry, I got a little cancer reading that part, and I needed to get it off my chest.

I know these things are difficult, I was taught them by my own miserable, painful, PTSD-enducing experience with creation of my first game, and I shiver when I see people making those mistakes. And then I pull out the gun when seeing them arguing with me... @___@

Offline Richard LeMoon

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 284
    • [Muse]
    • 33 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Muse should prioritise what?
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2016, 07:04:50 pm »
Well, the biggest issue was that it as a codemonkey trying to write an easy syntax system for penjockeys. Things got ugly. Personally, I understood it and could make magic happen. The other writers.... not so much. Syntax of any kind is not parsable by most penjockies. Then the penjockies would make new quest option requests that the codemonkey, not being a writer, had never thought of. Things would have to be changed to add the new features, syntax would have to be changed to make it more understandable by penjockies, and old shit would all have to be updated.

Personally, I told him to just make a node-based visual snap together quest builder. Penjockey inputs text or clicks on required action from dropdown, puts in required inputs, and links to the next nodes. Syntax autogens. Everyone is happy.

He told me, "This syntax is simple. You just have to follow the [20 page] guide I made. They should learn it."