<!--quoteo(post=1652164:date=Sep 25 2007, 08:40 PM:name=Mouse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mouse @ Sep 25 2007, 08:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1652164"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Would scope of these be comparable to the x.0 (2.0, 3.0 etc.) or the .x (3.1, 3.2 etc.) releases of NS?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it would be safe to assume .x (3.1, 3.2) in both content and impact, then again I assume.
<!--quoteo(post=1652152:date=Sep 26 2007, 12:48 AM:name=KungFuDiscoMonkey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Sep 26 2007, 12:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1652152"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Except it would still be a lot of work. Assuming that you finished _1 completely you would then need to go through the majority of the level again and change things for _2 and _3. In reality, you never finish a map completely. Mapping is a very iterative process that doesn't ever really finish. The map is just shipped. Even worse is that you can't treat a map like a piece of source code where you can have multiple branches and share changes between them. Anytime you made a change on one of the versions, you would potentially have to manually make the changes on all the other versions. I think this whole thing would be a waste of time and effort.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, if I were to finish a map (i.e. have the version ready for shipping) and then decided to start working on the other versions (_2 and _3), i'd use a couple of tricks. For one, you could keep every geometric, entity (func_details would be a lot of it, in Source) and overlay change in its own VisGroup, even with their own Sub-VisGroups. And then do the same for the 3rd version.
We're only talking visuals (explosion marks, bullet holes, blood splatters) and maybe a few geometric changes (fallen supports, etc). So, a lot of overlays with a few detail brushes that slightly modify their room's gameplay. I think it would definitely be manageable to add these in once the base map is done, and fairly easy too.
And with the visgroup techniques, when you come back and make whatever changes to the original version, you could copy over the groups of architecture for the battered versions. Sure, some of them would need to me moved or replaced, but the majority of the work wouldn't have to be redone.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm concerned that there are too many people saying "That would be cool" or "They should add this" without sitting down to seriously think about what benefit would this add to the game and would the effort even be worth it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm a mapper myself, and have made one of the biggest maps in NS. If you used a few tricks like the ones mentioned above, it wouldn't be that hard to accomplish, imo.
<!--quoteo(post=1652331:date=Sep 26 2007, 07:53 PM:name=StixNStonz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(StixNStonz @ Sep 26 2007, 07:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1652331"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm a mapper myself, and have made one of the biggest maps in NS. If you used a few tricks like the ones mentioned above, it wouldn't be that hard to accomplish, imo.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The problem is any alterations to #1 would need to be made to #2 and #3 as well. It's just not practical.
What probably would be practical, however, would be a map that allows hives to bottleneck entrance passages a bit more (ie, destructable things/things that come down and block), so that hives are a bit more protected if an alien spends 15seconds biting...or something (which now that i think about that...that doesn't sound like very much fun). But the mapper could decide where he wants lights to go off, or pilons to fall or columns to develop holes or vents to open or close, etc.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1652468:date=Sep 27 2007, 04:35 AM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crispy @ Sep 27 2007, 04:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1652468"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem is any alterations to #1 would need to be made to #2 and #3 as well. It's just not practical.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
or you could leave 1 and 2 the way they are and just update three.
Comments
I think it would be safe to assume .x (3.1, 3.2) in both content and impact, then again I assume.
I say YES, mak a story! =D
Awesome stuff, I can't eait till its finished~ <3
Well, if I were to finish a map (i.e. have the version ready for shipping) and then decided to start working on the other versions (_2 and _3), i'd use a couple of tricks. For one, you could keep every geometric, entity (func_details would be a lot of it, in Source) and overlay change in its own VisGroup, even with their own Sub-VisGroups. And then do the same for the 3rd version.
We're only talking visuals (explosion marks, bullet holes, blood splatters) and maybe a few geometric changes (fallen supports, etc). So, a lot of overlays with a few detail brushes that slightly modify their room's gameplay. I think it would definitely be manageable to add these in once the base map is done, and fairly easy too.
And with the visgroup techniques, when you come back and make whatever changes to the original version, you could copy over the groups of architecture for the battered versions. Sure, some of them would need to me moved or replaced, but the majority of the work wouldn't have to be redone.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm concerned that there are too many people saying "That would be cool" or "They should add this" without sitting down to seriously think about what benefit would this add to the game and would the effort even be worth it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm a mapper myself, and have made one of the biggest maps in NS. If you used a few tricks like the ones mentioned above, it wouldn't be that hard to accomplish, imo.
or you could leave 1 and 2 the way they are and just update three.