Brainstorm: How to have big maps, with focused battles
BCSeph
Join Date: 2005-02-24 Member: 42384Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2005-02-24 Member: 42384Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Some DI/rine power grid ideas</div>I cant find where but I remember the Devs stating that they wanted NS2 maps to be smaller than classic NS maps. To that I give a big NO. One thing I loved about NS was the expanse of the maps that really made you feel like you were in a massive super-structure of a space ship. It also allowed many things to go on at once in the map. However, depending on the game size, the big maps had their problems.
In big maps, new players had trouble finding their way around. If the game had less than 20 or so players, the map seemed too empty sometimes. However, big maps increase the atmospheric feeling of the game and also would help tender to the dual-commander strategy of NS2.
So why do the devs want smaller maps? This is possibly because the see big maps stretching out the action too much-- as in, people branch out all over the map and there is a lower player concentration in areas. Essentially, the devs would rather have smaller maps that cram people together, ensuring there are always player encounters and big battles. They dont want players wandering around a map without encountering the other team for minutes on end.
To satisfy the devs objectives with big maps, we must find a way to concentrate players in certain areas of maps that vary depending on team size. If the game is 6v6, both teams should only be using a small part of the map. If it is 16v16, most of the entire map should be sprawling with players.
Some ideas come to mind to help concentrate players. For one, dynamic infestation and the marine power grid.
Lets assume that both work in similar manners, in that they much have a connection back to the "source", ala the hive or CC, to work. If you find some DI and kill it, all the DI ahead of it not connected to the hive dies as well. In the marine power grid, if aliens destroy a node in a room, rooms ahead that have buildings that arent connected to the command chair will turn off.
Now, the above case only works if the teams are reliant on their territory controlling mechanism (DI and power grid). We could say that if aliens are not near DI, they lose some speed/health, camouflage, etc. If marines are not near a powered room, maybe their flashlights get dimmer, they lose medpack/ammopack access from commander, etc. This keeps teams near their controlled territory, but still gives the option to go out.
I realize this might drastically change the game for the worse, but this is just a brainstorm, mainly to show the devs we still want big, expansive maps, and are willing to compensate. What do you guys think? How should big maps be handled?
In big maps, new players had trouble finding their way around. If the game had less than 20 or so players, the map seemed too empty sometimes. However, big maps increase the atmospheric feeling of the game and also would help tender to the dual-commander strategy of NS2.
So why do the devs want smaller maps? This is possibly because the see big maps stretching out the action too much-- as in, people branch out all over the map and there is a lower player concentration in areas. Essentially, the devs would rather have smaller maps that cram people together, ensuring there are always player encounters and big battles. They dont want players wandering around a map without encountering the other team for minutes on end.
To satisfy the devs objectives with big maps, we must find a way to concentrate players in certain areas of maps that vary depending on team size. If the game is 6v6, both teams should only be using a small part of the map. If it is 16v16, most of the entire map should be sprawling with players.
Some ideas come to mind to help concentrate players. For one, dynamic infestation and the marine power grid.
Lets assume that both work in similar manners, in that they much have a connection back to the "source", ala the hive or CC, to work. If you find some DI and kill it, all the DI ahead of it not connected to the hive dies as well. In the marine power grid, if aliens destroy a node in a room, rooms ahead that have buildings that arent connected to the command chair will turn off.
Now, the above case only works if the teams are reliant on their territory controlling mechanism (DI and power grid). We could say that if aliens are not near DI, they lose some speed/health, camouflage, etc. If marines are not near a powered room, maybe their flashlights get dimmer, they lose medpack/ammopack access from commander, etc. This keeps teams near their controlled territory, but still gives the option to go out.
I realize this might drastically change the game for the worse, but this is just a brainstorm, mainly to show the devs we still want big, expansive maps, and are willing to compensate. What do you guys think? How should big maps be handled?
Comments
Now that's just a stupid useless restriction. Why even play the map if it's too big for 6v6?!
Now the economy is balanced, but the two sides are still fundamentally different in combat and map coverage, so I imagine that there will still be problems scaling with the number of players. This is a problem in any game, not just NS.
So maps will probably be designed for the average game size, and the action will be more spread out or crowded depending on the number of players, unless some sort of mechanism (probably DI and power grid, as you mentioned) for reducing the relative reward for capping random nodes in smaller games. In NS, small games can really landslide over if one team caps lots of remote nodes.
I just died a little inside, please make it go away, UWE
Why not make it so that portions of maps are locked? Lick an airlock that needs to be opened in order to expand a map should there be a certain number of players on the server? If there are only 5 on each side then the airlock is broken, if there are more then it is open.
Why not make it so that portions of maps are locked? Lick an airlock that needs to be opened in order to expand a map should there be a certain number of players on the server? If there are only 5 on each side then the airlock is broken, if there are more then it is open.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. Better to close and opening sections to get the right balance.
Another reason for having smaller maps is the time it takes to make them, balance and populate them with interesting stuff, just thought I should add it to the discussion. The environments seems very detailed and thought out and it might be a simple case of quality over quantity in the end.
Why not make it so that portions of maps are locked? Lick an airlock that needs to be opened in order to expand a map should there be a certain number of players on the server? If there are only 5 on each side then the airlock is broken, if there are more then it is open.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All depends on the options available with the game.
What happens though, a game starts 4v4 and certain areas are locked dout.
2 minutes in 8 more people join to it's 8v8. While the map "expand" or stay it's original size?
I see where you are going, but yes, it could be overcomplicating it. There will be a need for large and small maps, larger maps for more players, smaller maps for lesser players.
But you never know, 6v6 on a map with 14 rooms to play around in instead of 6 could make for some interesting tactics... :)
I personally think that making the maps smaller would hinder the overall game play and immersion factor.
So long as a map is designed and balanced well it can be fun large or small.
It just has to be of a size that small maps can handle 5v5 or 15v15 without too much crowding and easy play.
My map ideas which are starting to take on more depth now that my mate is helping with concept ideas and will do some 3d modelling of custom models for me (<i>whoot</i>) may not be ready for release, but will certainly allow for larger battles on a serious level and make the multiple commander idea REALLY come into play.
Now should every map cater to 6 on 6 games? Why not have the large maps, yet let the game decide what sections of the map become active for the amount of active players. Maybe let the players for on which section/quadrant a game is set on?
The marines could have a holographic sort of arrow or bip displaying their squad, and the aliens could have a smell trail that leads them to their allies. (possibly both hud displays could lead to the enemy if the enemy is marked?)
For big maps to work... marines need enough access to rts to have a chance. And respawning needs to be faster then it is for aliens to counter the time it takes marines to get to areas of the map. They also need weapons to win most small rambo 1-on-1 fights when their out-and-about scouting the map.
But overall i am shocked (but not suprised) to see the devs suggesting maps smaller then NS1 maps... really... it just opens the door for gimicky non-interactive hallways leading to a premature hive fight. This is all about getting the game "done". From this we can be certain all maps will be single floor, most of the time, and not much more then some scatter props.
It'll really be up to the community to finish the game and make some real maps.
Or that Marines > Alien in open rooms.
Or that Aliens are ambushers, thus faster to get into position.
Also, ellipses are ineffective in posts.
If the game is balanced, mappers could create bigger maps or even dynamic ones, they are possible even in ns1,
I admit it won't be easy to balance them but hey.... we got time don't we ?
I also want longer game times because I liked the push and pull for control of a map.
From all the posts that I have read regarding these subjects, it seems that many people share the same thoughts as me, so I wonder why the Devs want to change this.
The Powergrid itself is probably useful for newbies as it directs the gameplay more towards easily recognizable critical locations. The possible strategies and depth involved are anyone's guess. I just hope the game doesn't revolve too much on the chokepoints, since the skirmishing map control is an awesome feature in NS. Blindly throwing yourself at the enemy and hoping he doesn't find your hitbox on the other hand isn't that much fun.
I don't think NS2's designs have anything to do with simply forcing players closer together or creating chokepoints, the difference isn't that drastic to begin with. Keep in mind that it's a different game.
Oh well. But the competive scene <b><u>is</u></b> responsible for rebalances and other stuff in NS1 that went out of hand for the pubs.
Think you could be a little specific?
As in general, I worry a lot of stuff, so no need to take it that seriously. I just like to play around with thoughts on how things work in gameplay, chokepoints and static fights being one of the possible outcomes with the power grid linking and area control like DI being in the game. Being critical sometimes provokes interesting discussion better than taking everything as a positive thingy.
I for one will be making my map the way I want it.
notice the hives (green stars) are directly connected via the red zone
the res (blue triangles )is all around the edge in the yellow and orange
<a href="http://img237.imageshack.us/i/ballencedmap.png/" target="_blank">http://img237.imageshack.us/i/ballencedmap.png/</a>
Player density is greatest towards the central red area, lots of linear combat there
Outside is the larger more strategic game