Random spawns

Bacillus

<!--quoteo(post=1896398:date=Jan 21 2012, 04:47 PM:name=TremanN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TremanN @ Jan 21 2012, 04:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1896398"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't understand why you think close spawn positions are imbalanced when either team has the potential to end the game just as easily as the other.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think there's any guarantee that both teams are going to have equal chances of finishing the game. Even without the map design itself it's really hard (and somewhat pointless) to try to create two teams that are asymmetric and equally powerful early game. Most likely one team is going to have a big advantage - possibly even further boosted by certain spawn positions - and it's in a really good position to just rush the enemy down.

The way SC2 plays out on close positions, the rounds don't usually end up breathing very well. It's like the game is using 10% of it's strategical possibilities, which then results in pretty gimmicky rounds that are interesting for a while, but turn out painfully dissatisfying after that.

I guess it's fine to try things out and see which spawns work decent enough, but making big changes to the maps or game desing for the sake of close spawns is a more risky thing.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Balancing the maps is going to be very hard to achieve but it's not impossible. If every map had to adhere to certain map standards (eg distance between tech points/resource towers, amount/location of vents, openness of rooms) then that would balance a bit easier. I'm thinking of starcraft/starcraft2 here. Every map has a main, a natural expansion (either up or down a ramp/walled off), and a third. I guess that's oversimplifying it but my point still stands.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The way I see it, balancing is going to be next to impossible. The melee vs ranged FPS is way more tricky than simple RTS balance in terms of maps. I don't think any NS1 map pulled off 3 completely balanced alien hives (most maps not even balanced enough for pub play), which still seems like a trivial task compared to the complexity that comes when both teams can spawn in multiple overlapping locations.

The rules can help, but at the same time they limit mapping a lot. If you take a look at SC2 maps, they're all relatively similar by layout, spawn locations and design in general. Those are enough for RTS, but playing FPS in such simplistic and mirrored maps isn't anywhere as exciting. And even then SC2 ended up preventing close spawn positions because those didn't play out very well.

---

In general, I guess trying things out is fine, but I'd rather not start sacrificing other possibilities in gameplay or mapping to make the randomization more viable.

Edit: And if the random spawns stay in public games, I'd definitely appreciate if there was some official 'balanced spawn' setting also that allows the servers to use the same map in a limited spawn way. In SC2 it's pretty unintuitive and tricky when tournaments are using slightly customized maps. Both replay viewing on your own system and just observing or commentating streams get a lot more tricky if there are little adjustments on each map.

IronHorse

<!--quoteo(post=1896319:date=Jan 20 2012, 10:34 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jan 20 2012, 10:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1896319"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The mapper just has to disable the marine start option (switch it to alien start only) in those vented rooms. It's a mapping issue.
Don't try to "fix" random starts in maps that weren't designed for them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

1. why limit where marines can start if you dont have to? people enjoy the varied gameplay
2. why not "fix" it if its an easy fix and it works?

sorry i just dont see how it would be more efficient for one to spend his time completely redesigning a map or multiple maps for all scenarios needed, versus adding in a single, easy feature that covers every scenario? easier for future mappers to.

good discussion, btw

Argathor

<!--quoteo(post=1896429:date=Jan 21 2012, 06:09 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jan 21 2012, 06:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1896429"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1. why limit where marines can start if you dont have to? people enjoy the varied gameplay
2. why not "fix" it if its an easy fix and it works?

sorry i just dont see how it would be more efficient for one to spend his time completely redesigning a map or multiple maps for all scenarios needed, versus adding in a single, easy feature that covers every scenario? easier for future mappers to.

good discussion, btw<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Vents exist for a reason. Simply closing them off if they happen to be in a Marine starting area is not an option, they would need to dynamically move around the map based on the random starting locations of both teams. Something that is not realistic.

There is no simple fix to this, we will have to make do with maps that are designed with specific starting criteria in mind.

IronHorse

<!--quoteo(post=1896438:date=Jan 21 2012, 10:26 AM:name=Argathor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Argathor @ Jan 21 2012, 10:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1896438"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Vents exist for a reason. Simply closing them off if they happen to be in a Marine starting area is not an option, they would need to dynamically move around the map based on the random starting locations of both teams. Something that is not realistic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

what? why would you have to do that?
why is it not an option, what am i not considering?

if vents are made to access bases as they currently do, why would you need to dynamically move them around? for what purpose/need? they are fine where they are currently - they server their purpose as alternate access routes for aliens. (Save for balancing of time of travel which is another subject)

just blocking the entrance into a Marine base through this vent allows the function of vents to operate normally while avoiding the spawn kill / grief that currently exists. an added bonus is that is gives the marines a better fighting chance against those skulk rushes.

i suppose the question i must reiterate is: <u>why is it not a valid option?</u>

Align

By "not an option" he means "it's not nearly enough" - vents lets skulks lerks etc bypass frequent routes of marines safely, or get behind forward defences and so on.
The positions of all these are affected by where marines spawn, so just eliminating the ones near marine start still leaves you with a whole lot of useless vents, which in turn means aliens get their mobility crippled. Or, equally, their new relative positions give aliens too big an advantage.

swalk

I still think summit could have random spawns to some degree, but teams would have to spawn across of each other.
Marines in Sub Access/Flight Control, Aliens Atrium/Data Core.
I would add that the vents would need to be completely redesigned with these spawns in mind to make it work.
Also, Flight Control would need to be a bit more marine friendly again.

As for tram, I think a screnario where marines spawn in the old marine spawn(new name?), and aliens in the old alien spawn(new name?) or Server Room, would be pretty decent.

IronHorse

so the issue is vents in general?
isn't that an intended counter to the long distance capabilities of the marines thats been used since NS1, though? providing cover for inferior skulks etc?
i get what the concern is, but wouldnt the so called portions of "useless" vents just be as useless as the uninhabited hallways which connect rooms? no potential resource, neutral, and a means to get somewhere?
if i run into a welded vent as a skulk i can safely assume that is a rine base obviously, so having my mobility crippled by occupying marines seems to be.... a <i>natural </i>consequence? :) its a form of area denial (as an occupying enemy team always does) and is different from turrets only in that it doesnt kill you.

<u><b>i suppose, balance wise, i cannot see the downside of vents as they have pros and cons</b></u> - short of travel times which i can agree is important. even using vents as a strategic platform where a squad can heal one another and stage an ambush is still subject to nades and arcs if close enough - besides the fact that it sounds like a great strat with severe potential for clustered players being taken out all at once.

swalk

<!--quoteo(post=1896538:date=Jan 22 2012, 04:43 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jan 22 2012, 04:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1896538"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><u><b>i suppose, balance wise, i cannot see the downside of vents as they have pros and cons</b></u> - short of travel times which i can agree is important. even using vents as a strategic platform where a squad can heal one another and stage an ambush is still subject to nades and arcs if close enough - besides the fact that it sounds like a great strat with severe potential for clustered players being taken out all at once.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The issue is not vents in general, it's vents near marine spawns, and missing vents near alien spawns.
The problem with heavy vent traffic in marine spawning areas, is that it makes it too hard for marines.
It makes the baserush tactic too powerful, it is that simple.
I would love to see some win/loss stats with different starting locations on summit.
Atrium, Flight Control and Data Core are bad spawns for marines, and Sub Access is a bad spawn for aliens. In my opinion.
In order to make random spawns work on summit, the to-do list would be like this:
The map gets a distance requirement, and Marines spawn in Sub/FC, aliens spawn in Atrium/DC. Reworked vents, reworked Flight Control.

ogz

Marines do quite well in FC, weakness being the far away res node/powernode

Aliens have it tough in sub-access because marines can shoot the hive from OUTSIDE of the room.... something they fixed up in FC but not in sub-access yet

internetexplorer

At the risk of being an idiot for not reading the thread, here are some obvious thoughts about random spawns:

- It's a cool mechanic that adds to replayability and increases reliance on an RTS skill (scouting), just like in Starcraft
- Abusive close positions aren't fun, just like in Starcraft
- The spawns have to be carefully selected and spaced out by mappers, to create interesting ups and downs between the spawn pairs, without making stale or frustrating gameplay (for instance, the warehouse spawn on tram is easy to defend from the ground because you can spot skulks running in, but it has a lot of vertical space to keep lerks out of if you want your buildings to survive)

Warehouse and Server Room spawns together on tram are probably the best example of all this. No matter what, when you get those, someone is going to get rushed.

I dunno. It's something that will work itself out with playtesting and tweaking, but the core idea is good and reminiscent of lots of other RTS games.

Wheeee

As I've said before, this is completely a mapping issue. You can have maps with short routes being sealed at the beginning which require tech to break through (welded shut doors, perhaps we could get some elevators that required power to function, etc).

Harimau

<!--quoteo(post=1896429:date=Jan 22 2012, 02:09 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jan 22 2012, 02:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1896429"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1. why limit where marines can start if you dont have to? people enjoy the varied gameplay
2. why not "fix" it if its an easy fix and it works?

sorry i just dont see how it would be more efficient for one to spend his time completely redesigning a map or multiple maps for all scenarios needed, versus adding in a single, easy feature that covers every scenario? easier for future mappers to.

good discussion, btw<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. If there is only one problematic start, you only need to remove that one. People <i>still</i> get <b>varied</b> gameplay - it just so happens that people also get <b>fun and balanced</b> gameplay.
2. It is not an "easy fix", it is a "band aid". You're treating the symptom, not the problem. You're wrong anyway, it is far easier for the mapper to disable problematic starts, than for the coder to add new functionality to vent entrances (which would probably have to be added by the mapper himself as entities, for each and every vent entrance). And when you do add the functionality, you upset the balance of the game around the map and across many maps and matches.
3. You are exasperating. What is it about the solution that is so hard to grasp? All the mapper has to do is disable problematic configurations. He doesn't have to redesign anything if he doesn't want to.

Krizzen

I standby a full scripting solution. If the spawns on a map still don't work, the community will point out the issues and suggest changes which can be implemented and tested. If that still doesn't alleviate the issues, then the map in question most likely needs to be redesigned.

IronHorse

<!--quoteo(post=1896573:date=Jan 21 2012, 10:34 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jan 21 2012, 10:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1896573"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2. It is not an "easy fix", it is a "band aid". You're treating the symptom, not the problem. You're wrong anyway, it is far easier for the mapper to disable problematic starts, than for the coder to add new functionality to vent entrances (which would probably have to be added by the mapper himself as entities, for each and every vent entrance). And when you do add the functionality, you upset the balance of the game around the map and across many maps and matches.
3. You are exasperating. What is it about the solution that is so hard to grasp? All the mapper has to do is disable problematic configurations. He doesn't have to redesign anything if he doesn't want to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

if your exasperated from explaining, you dont have to reply / answer my questions, no need to stress out man.
I just dont get the mentality behind disabling or restricting a feature such as random locations for either team when they can be balanced through adjustments.

so what exactly, is the "symptom" ? the OP defines it as:

"<i>Due to the very short running times between the spawns, it creates a very deathmatchy feel instead of an RTS/FPS feel.
Games are very likely to be decided within the first minute or two. However, due to the layout of the maps, vent systems, etc. balance is impossible to achieve, with these random spawns."</i>

so the issue isn't not having fixed starts for teams, its the proximity <u>and </u>access to each other's starting locations.
"all the mapper has to do is disable problematic configrations." by this you mean which team starts where, i take it? this is not possible with four equidistant starting locations as long as you wish to retain the "where is their hive?" scenario that random spawns is intended for. for instance, if you set a requirement to have a distance between starting locations that is further than data core and atrium, it limits you to scenarios which only allow for opposites, such as sub access and atrium, or data core and flight control etc. pre determined locations = the same as fixed locations =/= random spawns.

that is one of the symptoms / issues the OP speaks of due to random spawns and<i> i have not addressed that.</i> other than to say i agree with OP.
<b>i have only addressed vents thus far, i.e. the "Access" to each other's starting locations</b>. perhaps this is why you're exasperated, a misunderstanding? there should be vents in every starting location, with welding them shut as an option once inhabited.<b><u> changing a "problematic start" does not change the vents' access to each other's bases without compromising the intended results of random spawns</u></b>.. which i'm sure you'll agree is a huge balancing issue that everyone is concerned about currently. (especially on tram)

without removing vents entirely, or removing random spawns entirely, or at the very least removing vents from spawns (which is overkill imo) they will have to create a method in which to deny unfair access (Vents) into enemy bases, as vents are intended as just a method of alternate travel / concealment and not a method of abuse, griefing, or unfair positioning. (unless a dev wishes to correct me on this)

yes, this is a symptom of a feature, not a "symptom of a problem". You don't always have to scrap an entire feature (Random spawn) when it merely requires some tuning. i think we can agree on this point considering your suggestion of not needing a redesign.

Harimau

Where in my posts did I ever say we should scrap random spawns?

It really is simple, and it has been said several times already: Design maps around random starts, don't try to fix random starts for maps not designed for them by changing the game.
Marine starting locations shouldn't be (unfairly) vented, and starting configurations shouldn't be too close to one another. That's something for the mapper to consider. Clearly, as you point out, a map with 4 equidistant starting locations may or may not be conducive to random spawns, as the distance between two adjacent starting locations may or may not be too short.

The scenario, or scripting, solution would be the best 'fix' as it gives the mapper more control over starting configurations. e.g. If X is marine start, Y and Z may be alien start.

The fact is, even with "random" spawns, there are only a finite number of starting configurations for each map regardless. The game effectively just chooses a random starting configuration from among these. The scenario, or scripting, solution would allow the mapper to specify what the allowable starting configurations are.

swalk

<!--quoteo(post=1896766:date=Jan 23 2012, 03:50 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jan 23 2012, 03:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1896766"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Where in my posts did I ever say we should scrap random spawns?

It really is simple, and it has been said several times already: Design maps around random starts, don't try to fix random starts for maps not designed for them by changing the game.
Marine starting locations shouldn't be (unfairly) vented, and starting configurations shouldn't be too close to one another. That's something for the mapper to consider. Clearly, as you point out, a map with 4 equidistant starting locations may or may not be conducive to random spawns, as the distance between two adjacent starting locations may or may not be too short.

The scenario, or scripting, solution would be the best 'fix' as it gives the mapper more control over starting configurations. e.g. If X is marine start, Y and Z may be alien start.

The fact is, even with "random" spawns, there are only a finite number of starting configurations for each map regardless. The game effectively just chooses a random starting configuration from among these. The scenario, or scripting, solution would allow the mapper to specify what the allowable starting configurations are.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well all that is already available for the mappers, it's just the design decision uwe(charlie) made that needs a change(both teams starting at same locations). UWE's mappers doesnt have this choice to change design decisions, its UWE's commander that have that.
Mappers can already define alien spawns and marine spawns, and they can define nospawn techpoints.
The point of this thread was for UWE to adress both teams being able to spawn at same locations.
And adding distance requirement for mappers.
And redesign summit a bit(including vents) so flight control is a decent spawn for marines.
So we can have Atrium(aliens) vs Sub Access(marines) or Flight Control(marines) vs Data Core(aliens).
That's the only way I can see random spawns ever working in summit.

Harimau

Not exactly.

Let's say that for a given map there are 5 possible starting locations: A, B, C, D, E

Currently, mappers can only specify each starting location as "marine only", "alien only", "both alien and marine".
e.g. A and B are marine only, C and D are alien only, E is both alien and marine. Possible configurations:
Marine-Alien starts respectively
A-C
A-D
A-E
B-C
B-D
B-E
E-C
E-D
All but one of these configurations (e.g. B-D) could be fine, but with the current system, you would have to disable B as marine start (or D as alien start), which would reduce the list of possible configurations (for the former) to:
A-C
A-D
A-E
E-C
E-D
That is three less configurations, despite only one of them being problematic.

The suggestion is for mappers to be able to specify different "scenarios", essentially starting-location pairs. This means that teams <b>can</b> still swap starting locations, but any problematic configurations (e.g. biased starts or too-short distances) can be omitted. e.g.
Marine-Alien starts respectively
A-B
A-C
A-D
B-A
B-E
D-C
E-A
If one of these configurations (e.g. A-D) is found to be problematic, then the mapper can simply remove that scenario, reducing the list to:
A-B
A-C
B-A
B-E
D-C
E-A
That is just the one configuration less.

No need for any unpredictable hard-coded "fixes" like welded vents in marine start, or minimum distances - the mapper has the power to fix or omit the problematic configurations.

kingmob

What is wrong with spawning so close?
Please explain this to me.

I can see the argument for just unfair/unbalanced spawns being marked nospawn.

But spawning close...
It usually leads to a more deathmatch game that ends quickly.
It might lead to both teams moving.

This isn't a bad game in any RTS or FPS I know.

And the starting location pairs take away from the randomness...If I am here...you are there....no surprise...no scouting

Harimau

Umm, how do starting location pairs take away from the randomness?
That's only the case if the starting location pairs are mutually exclusive.
e.g. A-B, C-D, E-F are mutually exclusive. That is certainly one possible approach.
But with scenarios, you could also have:
e.g. A-B, A-C, A-D, A-E, B-C, B-D, B-E, etc.
If you start at A, then it is very possible that aliens can be at B, C D, or E.

IronHorse

Since our starting positions have been limited to four places (crossroads is not spawnable, being in the middle) it only leads to a PAIR. a predictable knowledge of an enemy base and not a surprise. like you said if its sub access, then we know its atrium - thats defeats the purpose of random spawns: not knowing where the enemy base is... its the "fog of war" of RTS games.

so if we need to fix the amount of starts, thats taking that step of redesigning a map.

<!--quoteo(post=1897479:date=Jan 26 2012, 10:11 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jan 26 2012, 10:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1897479"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No need for any unpredictable hard-coded "fixes" like welded vents in marine start, or minimum distances - the mapper has the power to fix or omit the problematic configurations.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

because the weldable doors <i>currently implemented</i> are such a stretch and are so unpredictable? a minimum distance would just be added to mapper guidelines (Which needs to be updated obviously)

<b>bottom line</b>: omitting problematic configurations as you suggest removes one of the core features and purpose of random spawns.

Harimau

Again, the difference is if the pairs are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE or not. What is it about that concept that is so difficult to understand????????????????? <!--coloro:gray--><span style="color:gray"><!--/coloro--><!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->ugh.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->

Umm, weren't lockable doors removed? If you make vents weldable, you have to make all vents weldable, even vents that should not, for balance reasons, be welded. If you don't make all vents weldable, then you have an <b>inconsistent</b> game mechanic which is bad design.

Minimum distance between spawns as a mapper guideline is fine - great, even, but there's absolutely no need to modify the game by coding it in. Any potential scenarios that don't conform to this guideline will have to be removed or changed. You do realise, I hope, that the end result of hard-coding minimum distance (while informing the mapper in the mapping guidelines), and scenarios conforming to the mapping guidelines, <b>are the same</b>? In both cases, you get scenarios that conform to a minimum distance between starting locations.
The benefit of scenarios is that they are considerably more obvious and far more flexible. Tell me, what approach would you even take to code minimum distance? The shortest flat path? The shortest three-dimensional path? As the crow flies? The first two are non-obvious to the mapper, and the third is incredibly inflexible: Tell me, what happens if you have a winding path?

<b>bottom line</b>: keeping problematic configurations and hacking an approach that would apply to every single map that don't have problematic configurations as you suggest goes against good design and game balance, while omitting or fixing problematic configurations with a scenario system is a relatively simple task.

SkymanderX

lol swalk what was your sig?

internetexplorer

<!--quoteo(post=1897480:date=Jan 26 2012, 02:14 PM:name=kingmob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kingmob @ Jan 26 2012, 02:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1897480"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What is wrong with spawning so close?
Please explain this to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

it emphasizes the FPS aspect over the RTS aspect just enough that the game doesn't feel like NS anymore. it's great to practice LMGs versus skulks once in a while, but after my third or fourth super-short game on tram I didn't want to do it anymore.

it's not like in starcraft where it creates real imbalance (zerg can't get enough hatcheries to compete with terran, bunker rushes arrive too quickly etc), but it certainly makes things very boring.

you know what's important to note here? this game doesn't have hivewalk yet. I dunno if the proper name is hivewalk, but it's a mechanic from NS1 where your use key on a hive will transport you to another hive (like a phase gate). Let's show off why this is important with an example: say you spawn at server room and warehouse on Tram. Somehow the game progresses beyond a silly quick rush, and both teams start to take ground south of their spawns. As the two teams extend down the sides of the map, it becomes easier to attack their new vulnerable bases. For the marines, it's easy because they can set up and protect phase gates - they can swap between attacking and defending easily. The aliens simply cannot do this as easily, even with the mobility of lerks/fades, because they are forced to cross the map like marines would without phase gates.

Phase gates are a classic NS mechanic, but so is hivewalk. Why has it been left out?

Wilson

I don't really understand the whole "random spawns makes you need to scout, which makes the game better" argument. It's not like SC2 where you need to scout constantly and watch out for proxy pylons or fast tech builds. The only change random spawns cause is that for the first 20 seconds of the game you are scouting - as soon as you discover the enemy and know their location then it turns into a completely standard game. If they are cross spawns you do one strat and if they are close you do another. If scouting is really a big reason for adding in random spawns then I think they cause more problems that it's worth; just to change the first 20 seconds from knowing where your opponent is, to scouting for them instead.

I think the game just plays better with static spawns. The maps can be designed and balanced very specifically as mappers know exactly where each team will be. I've not seen many team based FPS games that have random starting locations. I'm sure you could have 1 or 2 maps with random spawns that could work but for the most part I think static spawns are the way to go.

In summit the whole map just flows vertically. All of the paths etc. have leading lines and everything is herding you in that direction. To me it feels weird playing in cross positions (fc and dc) as you are running against the grain of the map.

pSyk0mAn

<!--quoteo(post=1897603:date=Jan 27 2012, 07:28 AM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Jan 27 2012, 07:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1897603"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->you know what's important to note here? this game doesn't have hivewalk yet. I dunno if the proper name is hivewalk, but it's a mechanic from NS1 where your use key on a hive will transport you to another hive (like a phase gate). Let's show off why this is important with an example: say you spawn at server room and warehouse on Tram. Somehow the game progresses beyond a silly quick rush, and both teams start to take ground south of their spawns. As the two teams extend down the sides of the map, it becomes easier to attack their new vulnerable bases. For the marines, it's easy because they can set up and protect phase gates - they can swap between attacking and defending easily. The aliens simply cannot do this as easily, even with the mobility of lerks/fades, because they are forced to cross the map like marines would without phase gates.

Phase gates are a classic NS mechanic, but so is hivewalk. Why has it been left out?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So true.
A lot of different things contribute to the issue that players prefer to attack each other, when teams spawns are close, instead of expanding and attacking enemy expansions.
I also believe that the lack of quickly built and working phase gates and hive teleport add to that issue (I'd love to see a power pack upgrade for the phase gate structure, so you are not bound to the power node of an area for a quick rush, but only when you plan on holding that area for a while).
As long as players are easily rewarded for rushing the close enemy spawn, it will happen.

ogz

i think hivewalk was put off cos they replaced the usekey on hive with another ability ? :p

anyways i think they're planning some movement type ability in the next upgrade to come out,, shift?

nydus canal type idea?

ogz

<!--quoteo(post=1897609:date=Jan 27 2012, 02:00 AM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Jan 27 2012, 02:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1897609"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't really understand the whole "random spawns makes you need to scout, which makes the game better" argument. It's not like SC2 where you need to scout constantly and watch out for proxy pylons or fast tech builds. The only change random spawns cause is that for the first 20 seconds of the game you are scouting - as soon as you discover the enemy and know their location then it turns into a completely standard game. If they are cross spawns you do one strat and if they are close you do another. If scouting is really a big reason for adding in random spawns then I think they cause more problems that it's worth; just to change the first 20 seconds from knowing where your opponent is, to scouting for them instead.

I think the game just plays better with static spawns. The maps can be designed and balanced very specifically as mappers know exactly where each team will be. I've not seen many team based FPS games that have random starting locations. I'm sure you could have 1 or 2 maps with random spawns that could work but for the most part I think static spawns are the way to go.

In summit the whole map just flows vertically. All of the paths etc. have leading lines and everything is herding you in that direction. To me it feels weird playing in cross positions (fc and dc) as you are running against the grain of the map.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

duno after playing summit so many times, i enjoy the freshness of random spawns.

I also like the 'close spawn' games, when the teams are balanced enough that neither can out-rush the other... theres a lot more strategy/tactic going on between apply the right amount of pressure to the other base (otherwise you will get overwhelm and base rushed) vs sending ppl off to expand in the other direction etc etc

NurEinMensch

"Hivewalk" will be done via the Shift I think.

swalk

<!--quoteo(post=1897624:date=Jan 27 2012, 11:36 AM:name=NurEinMensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NurEinMensch @ Jan 27 2012, 11:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1897624"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Hivewalk" will be done via the Shift I think.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm quite sure I read that somewhere as well.

swalk

<!--quoteo(post=1897587:date=Jan 27 2012, 04:23 AM:name=SkymanderX)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SkymanderX @ Jan 27 2012, 04:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1897587"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->lol swalk what was your sig?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Huh? My signature? What about it?