Technology Level Restrictions

yutt · October 2003

<div class="IPBDescription">They are needed for new unique maps.</div> Are there any plans to implement map based technology restrictions?

I ask this because a friend and I are currently creating a map that would benefit from this. Actually it isn't being created, the design is already done and it is currently undergoing balance and useability testing.

It is not a classic NS map, but more objective based. If you've played Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory you'll have a rough idea of how the objective based system works; though our map design actually predates the release of that game.

The map is specifically designed not to support Onos. This was simple in 1.0, as you could limit the aliens to two hives. With 2.0 however, in playtesting we have had a few people frustrated that they saved up 100 resources to evolve, only to find out there is no way for them to move around the map in most cases.

So, will this be an available option in a future NS update? I think allowing map designers to set technology limits for both the humans and aliens could allow for more varied maps. I am sure many of you have played Starcraft (or really any other RTS for that matter), which often limits certain technologies depending on the mission.

Thanks. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

Parallax · October 2003

Although it sounds interesting, have you thought that there will be many players who won't want to play on a map when they never get to be onos?

If you do put in technical restrictions, make sure that it is clear to both sides at the start what they can and can't expect from the enemy. I.e both sides should know that aliens can't get onos and marines can't get seige, for instance.

Is it really too hard to have large enough corridors throughout the map so that onos can get around?

I must admit, though, if the technologies are chosen wisely, that it would add some variation to gameplay. I.e no HA's and no onos and you would have some interesting lower level matches. No seige and you would have marines using coordinated gl attacks.

Perhaps another interesting thing to have in maps are ammo / weapon caches that the marines can access / places that aliens can pick up res (similar to sucking on a res node). You could go further and have it so that certian guns can only be dropped by an armoury in a certian area, or func_locations can specify what you can gestate into in certian rooms (so that people won't go onos in a room that they cannot leave, or in places that they will get stuck in a wall).

You might make it so that there were certian places that a marine commander could drop guns as long as they could drop those guns in their base (so you have like a nanite conduit from the armoury to a remote location). Then the commander could give out weilders and mines in a more accessable place.

These ideas would add more strategic variety to maps (and unfortunately make them harder to balance & master).

-Parallax

Necrosis · October 2003

Tech level restrictions would certainly be something for the S&I forums. The concept itself probably predates your map as well - it goes back years.

Would be interesting to see how it would work in NS - tho I pity the people who'd have to PT the maps in order to make them "official"

yutt · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Although it sounds interesting, have you thought that there will be many players who won't want to play on a map when they never get to be onos?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
This map definitely isn't for those players. Everyone has certain maps they prefer and certain ones they dislike, this will be no exception. People who don't want to strategize as much and would prefer NS Combat style gameplay may dislike this map. However, I know for certain many people do enjoy objective oriented team games, more complex and meaningful than simple Capture the Flag.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you do put in technical restrictions, make sure that it is clear to both sides at the start what they can and can't expect from the enemy. I.e both sides should know that aliens can't get onos and marines can't get seige, for instance.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
It will be clear enough. Via an included text file, any necessary in-game help messages, and playing obviously. Using Wolfenstein: ET again as an example, when you first start playing it can be very confusing. Where do you go? What are you supposed to be doing? However, after playing a map once or twice you realize how much more people are working together toward the objective instead of simply "Rambo-ing". Of course, our map may be crap compared to the worst Wolf: ET level, we'll find out. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Is it really too hard to have large enough corridors throughout the map so that onos can get around?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
That's really not the issue. Of course we could design the map to allow Onos to move around, but we don't want them. There are plenty of times in a single player RTS that map designers have reasons for restricting technology. We are just implimenting that in a multiplayer environment. Anyhow, currently our map has a 25 minute time-limit. So that wouldn't allow much time for Onos anyhow. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Perhaps another interesting thing to have in maps are ammo / weapon caches that the marines can access / places that aliens can pick up res (similar to sucking on a res node).</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Coincidentally, while not an RTS, Wolf: ET has just that. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>These ideas would add more strategic variety to maps (and unfortunately make them harder to balance & master).</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Of course, but the game shouldn't always be about perfect balance. So long as people are having fun, you know that everything must be on the right track. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

KungFuDiscoMonkey · October 2003

I think it's a neat idea although I'm not sure how it would balance or how popular it would be.

DuFfY1 · October 2003

It would also be handy for mappers if they could set triggers to 'Alien Only' or 'Marine Only', it could make for some interesting scenarios (Eg: A retinal scanner, an alarm system if an alien is detected in the area, etc)

Lt_Gravity · October 2003

great idea.
I will never understand why the ns team "evolves" in the wrong direction (in my eyes!) . instead of adding some more triggers, teambased entities and rebuild the damage system for ns ("help, Im nuked!" - "what you say? Im slow-freezing ^^") the invent the combat mode. no sense to me. to give mappers more control, how a map can be played, would add some more new aspects to natural selection. not to mention that we want to argue "the gods" of the ns-universe. but... I miss the cineastic feel, that is praised in the mapping guidelines... but vanished more and more with each door that was deleted from 2.0 maps.
I like the idea of restriction. low level fights are much more fun than onos vs. ha matches.

yutt · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Oct 15 2003, 10:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I think it's a neat idea although I'm not sure how it would balance or how popular it would be.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
We'll never find out unless we try. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

I don't know either, but it would be nice to have the option available. If you look at Counter Strike, there are (or were at least, I haven't played for years) many different game types; escort the VIP, place the bomb, etc. But right now NS only has one game type, with Combat soon to come.

In the right level designer's hands having an objective based game could be a blast. I'm not exactly sure how to request this feature. Or if it has already been denied. Are any mods reading this?

Redford · October 2003

I know, but I am not allowed to tell. Sorry. ^^

Drown · October 2003

I think this is a really good idea, as said before onos vs ha gets monotonous at best, it would be nice to see this implemented, the key is to allow variation in building... whether it works out to be playable is another issue altogether.. such as the 5 hive probablility.

Necrosis · October 2003

I shall be the first to say:

ooooOOOOOOOooooo

And second to say can people quit with the NS:C bashing, I mean most of us haven't played it. Granted its not the team based game which most of the NS community signed up for, but knowing the NS team we can at the very least say it will be INTERESTING. Have some faith.

Parallax · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It would also be handy for mappers if they could set triggers to 'Alien Only' or 'Marine Only', it could make for some interesting scenarios (Eg: A retinal scanner, an alarm system if an alien is detected in the area, etc) </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Please note that there is already an entity for this... (dump from the mapping guidelines follows)

trigger_presence (brush entity)
Purpose: brush that allows selective triggering based on team and entity type

Fields: Smart Edit Name Field Name Description
Name targetname For killtargeting
Master master If master is off, entity won't activate
Activation Target targetenter Target to toggle when someone enters the area
Deactivation Target targetleave Target to toggle when everyone leaves the area
Momentary Target momentarytarget Optional momentary_door target
Momentary Open Time momentaryopentime Time for momentary_door target to open fully
Momentary Close Time momentaryclosetime Time for momentary_door target to close

Flags: Name Flag Value Description
No Clients 1 Trigger ignores players.
No Monsters 2 Trigger ignores monsters.
No Pushables 4 Trigger ignores pushables.
Team One Only 8 Trigger will ignore team two.
Team Two Only 16 Trigger will ignore team one.

Notes: This entity is designed to track whenever 1 or more entities of a given type are within its bounds. Activation target is fired when the count goes from 0 to 1+, and Deactivation Target fires when the count drops back to 0.

anty · October 2003

These Restriction Ideas could be used for new funmaps.
you can put for instance on your own co_funmap a skulk vs. marine only map, or areas where you can pick up weapons or some stuff. that would be cool for all the funmappers out there.

Also thats something what CS never did. Supporting Non-Used Entities that can be used in unofficial maps. Until now I'm very happy what Flyra did, and I think he will do a nice work in the future, also. Let's see, what the team will say to our ideas of entitys <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>

2_of_Eight · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (yutt @ Oct 15 2003, 11:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So long as people are having fun, you know that everything must be on the right track. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
You can't have one without the other.
Fun -> Balance
Balance -> Fun
<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

Lt_Gravity · October 2003

I like the DoD fgd. the mapper has full freedom to do what he thinks to suit the map well.
am I the only one thinking about this "no, you wont get any extra entities to create maps that are special, nor will you be able to change gameplay by adding some mission objectives." as a big *questionmark* <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'> why the ns team wouldnt let it just happen? Im shure there are people out there that will do fine with this new options. and it wouldnt be too hard to balance maps anymore.

Necrosis · October 2003

Yes but such maps are wholly different from current NS, as well as NS:C. Lets just bear in mind here that the team have just about put the final touches on the "normal" game mode, and are experimenting with a new one.

So I'd hate to be the PTs who'd have to test NS, NS:C, normal maps, and new maps. Thats a hell of a workload for a largely volunteer organisation, I'd think you'd agree.

Hypergrip · October 2003

Thoseof you how followed the various threads about NS:C or simply stopped by in #nsquestions may already know that is PLANNED for NS:C to get a couple of new triggers that allow to create maps with custom goals.
You could create any map from an escape scenario to a capture and hold map (as know from Tribes).
Hell, you could even create NS-Pacman.

However this is still a PLANNED feature.
We want to get 2.1 out of the door asap and there a lots of other things to do.
Right now, stop bashing NS:C before you played it and look forward to some fun rounds of TeamDeathmatch in NS:C and some nice looking new maps for NS.

yutt · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hypergrip @ Oct 17 2003, 11:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Thoseof you how followed the various threads about NS:C or simply stopped by in #nsquestions may already know that is PLANNED for NS:C to get a couple of new triggers that allow to create maps with custom goals.
You could create any map from an escape scenario to a capture and hold map (as know from Tribes).</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Excellent. Thanks for a decisive answer. I will have to search out those threads.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>However this is still a PLANNED feature.
We want to get 2.1 out of the door asap and there a lots of other things to do.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Of course that is the priority. I just wanted to know if this had been discussed before and what the teams' opinion was on it.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Right now, stop bashing NS:C before you played it and look forward to some fun rounds of TeamDeathmatch in NS:C and some nice looking new maps for NS.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
There was only one negative comment about NS:C in this entire thread, so your comment is somewhat unwarranted. Since you bring it up however, I am not very enthusiastic about NS:C either. Natural-Selection was an incredible jump to the cutting edge of FPS multiplayer gaming. NS:C appears to be a retreat toward "tried-and-true" methods. It's more like NS minus the innovation that makes it such a great game. Just your mention of TeamDeathmatch makes me yawn.

But, I don't want to drag this thread too far off-topic. We'll see. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'>

Technology Level Restrictions

Comments