There has to be a way to convert those maps. Smaller continents more continents. Just write a program to convert it to the new engine.
It's not just terrain. The invisible stuff behind bases, territories, deploy zones, and maybe baking shadows would have to be done. And it would look like outdated crap compared to the rest. Also you realize most maps are going to be locked. You get like 10 maps of which 2 will be open.
lol... oh yeah, and while you're at it, just write a program to make the game look like disney pixar movies, willya? Shouldn't be that hard. Just write a program to convert it! e.z.mode gamedevelopment 101.
Unfortunately it's nowhere near as easy as you think it is to do that. It took this dev team almost a year to implement Hossin alone. And even then, they had to release it as a beta continent full of glitches. So be happy with what you got. And don't expect any new continents any time soon.
Oh, I totally agree! But I don't see them adding anything content wise ever. Especially not now that they're owned by an investment firm.
IMO the size of Hossin and the amount of time it took for them to develop a map of that size was the biggest mistake DBG/SOE made with this game. I was completely shocked when I realize Hossin was the same size as all the other continents with as many or more bases. They really should have made Hossin 1/2 or a 3/4 the size of Indar and got that released sooner so they could have began working on new continents/other content. Instead they spent a year on a giant continent that most people don't enjoy playing on.
We are not bored! We get to play Indar ALL DAY LONG! I heard from an insider that Searhus is made but needs testing. Maybe if we all buy an anniversary pack they'll put that money back into the game?
Yeah the number of bases were really a stupid idea. One would think they had learned by that time that the way people play does not match the way they designed the other continents. Players don't spread out into small groups all over the map, the do the opposite.
It would be cool, but a little unrealistic. Not only is there differences in the resources themselves, and the engines, but also the people developing the software. DBG could probably improve their toolset to pump content out faster, though that could be said of any developer. There is a lot of work that goes into content creation, but it can always be improved and optimized with enough forethought. Not criticizing DBG specifically, most game devs hit this pitfall because it's so easy to get it wrong, and so tough to get it right. Yeah, you could write a converter program, but it should've been a consideration at the outset, not 3+ years later, including development time. Trust me, you can spend hundreds of hours thinking of programs that could do this or that, but after all is said and done, someone has to program it, and that costs money and time that could be better spent elsewhere ( or ideally for an investment firm, not at all ).
FYP. This is absolutely true, but I think we'll be lucky to see ANTs and buildable turrets, nevermind Lattice 2.0 and new continents plus other new vehicles (I suppose we might see ES-buggies, maybe) are basically pie in the sky I think now.
