Community-created content

[Fixious]

I saw JP briefly talk about this in IRC earlier. What kind of tools can the community expect to have access to in AoT? A map maker would be pretty cool, and could definitely keep the game alive and fresh for quite a while given there's a decent sized community around to support it.

[Grandy]

Depends on what is actually customizable in the game!

Unless Unity has something official, making useful tools can be a bit of a timesink.. then again it may be possible in modelling software to create a port-able format for it. In an ideal world you'd have an all in one kind of modeller that could be used for map making or cosmetic creation... not sure what else really.

[MarkTheGiraffe]

This would require a system to actually get the maps to other players. I'm not sure how difficult that is to do, but it is something to be aware of when talking about this.

[Grandy]

This would require a system to actually get the maps to other players. I'm not sure how difficult that is to do, but it is something to be aware of when talking about this.

Shouldn't be too difficult to stream the map data to the player on join - I haven't played the game yet in order to know, but it could be implemented already depending on how it has been setup.

[JustinPierce]

In the long term, I definitely want to explore UGC. I really like what Valve is doing with CS:GO and DOTA2. I'm especially interested in supporting UGC for things that don't really affect gameplay. Cosmetics, HUDs, etc.

Things like maps and custom variables that affect gameplay I'm a little less certain on. Besides the fact that I'd have to build tools to support it, I'm worried about segmenting the community early on.

I started learning gamedev by making Counter-Strike maps so I know how valuable these things can be, though back then there wasn't Unity/UE4 making it super easy/affordable to make games.

But we'll see.

[Grandy]

Things like maps and custom variables that affect gameplay I'm a little less certain on. Besides the fact that I'd have to build tools to support it, I'm worried about segmenting the community early on.

I can appreciate the apprehension behind those types of things, though even HUDs and cosmetics could potentially have the same issue (as discussed in IRC), so it's all about giving the right restrictions on these things.

I am not sure what you mean when you suggest they would segment the community?
If you mean the range of choice of maps expanding, people not wanting to play certain maps or whatever, I think that could always be an issue, as soon as there is > 1 map to choose from (which I presume there shall be?).

One inbetween route is to go for a small set of officially created and "playtested to high heavens" maps for official servers to rotate through, but allow community-hosted servers that can use those or any others of choosing. Just need to make sure that matchmaking takes into account that players may just want the official maps, in which case provide a filter. If then a user-created map is deemed balanced, fun and fitting for the game perhaps it could be adopted into the official rotation and credit given where due - I think this is a great incentive for creativity and new facets of gameplay to come through!

Look at TF2 for example, they have much the same system as just described (except they've not been all too proactive with the adoption of community maps lately however).

[JustinPierce]

I am not sure what you mean when you suggest they would segment the community?

Inevitably, people will create maps that fundamentally change how the game is played.

In CS, they were maps like scoutsknives, fy_icemap, gungame, etc. Natural Selection had the maps/modes that removed all the commander stuff and basically just made it TDM.

While these things add variety and can offer a nice break from the more serious modes, I do think they risk segmenting the community. I definitely remember times where I was annoyed trying to find a normal Natural Selection server because they all seemed to be running the stripped down mod. Eventually, it felt like gungame/aim maps outnumbered normal cs servers (1.6). I guess you could make the argument that a game would die even faster without these sort of things, but I'm not sure how you'd prove it either way.

Today, the big games are more... regulated. Even though MOBAs were born from custom RTS maps, the big MOBAs only have official maps. CS:GO still has custom stuff but it also has better matchmaking so the custom stuff is hidden in the back -- maybe that helps (I don't have enough experience with CS:GO to know). I think the way modern MOBAs keep the experience more consistent really helps competitive play -- from day one, new players are learning the same game as the pros. They aren't playing with different configurations or rules -- they aren't segmented.

UGC can definitely expand the lifespan of a game, but I think modern MOBAs prove that continued development is another way to do it (and perhaps a better way). With older games, the game would be released and then only get minor patches until the sequel comes out. UGC was the only way these older games really evolved over the years. Modern competitive games are changing that -- they have more sustainable business models and use that consistent revenue to continue development for years and years instead of doing sequels. I guess that's more attractive to me.

[Grandy]

I can see how niche game-modes could easily spring up from the implementation of community created maps, and that it could take players away from the "main game" - same applies to custom server hosting/configurations. However my mind more goes to the thought of, well if these mode(s) are becoming more popular than the game itself, are they..

a) More fun than the actual game
or b) Made too accessible to the average player

Either way it's a problem, but I would say it's more in the hands of the developer to balance it out and setup the user flow in such a way that the focus stays in the right spot. Cutting off this facet of creativity would be a sure-fire way of preventing this for sure, but I do think there are potential options for making it work.

Going back to the TF2 example, they have made it so that the main part of the matchmaker will only consider servers running official maps only. It has the option to straight up join the best server (based on ping), or just list the servers and their pings/player count so you can choose the map you want. It then has an added area of 'beta maps' where servers running the official 'in progress' maps are listed - <hint> this could also be a cool place to show off any community maps that have potential to be officially integrated into the main rotation </hint>.
Then completely separate to this process is the flat server list which has every single server, both official and non-official, with host information, map information etc, which would then allow players to choose any server, which is where the community maps and/or modes would stem from.

That's just where my mind goes on the subject. I know many competitive shooters do opt for the approach you describe and it has worked out great, however I can also see the great potential that arises from users being enabled to put countless hours into possibly creating and testing the "next awesome map", that devs alone would never have the time for.