Dynamic Maps

James1986 · October 2007

<div class="IPBDescription">TFC 2</div>I know this might have been mentioned before but has anyone played TFC 2 yet....? They have dynamic maps which change after every victory. Ill explain if people dont know what im talking about, but seriously... Its a feasably brilliant way of keeping the gameplay interesting!

infact I think I actually posted something about levels changing and following a scenario/campaign like trail.

and a silly man shooting a gun for dani <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/asrifle.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::asrifle::" border="0" alt="asrifle.gif" /> ...

Wyattx3 · October 2007

I think if Combat ever makes its way into NS2, these kinds of maps would make it worthy of NS.

I can just imagine Aliens and Marines fighting over Control Points, and each time one team acheives the objectives it moves the field to the next part of the map with the new objectives. And the control points wouldn't be control points, they'd be things like Weldables or a Self-Destruct mechanism, escape pods, aliens could defend eggs or a hive, other ideas would probobly come up later, but its defenetly a great way to spice up old game modes.

schkorpio · October 2007

its a good idea , but i hate the way its done in tf2, the round pauses and restarts when a capture point is captured - its so annoying - you might aswell be changing maps.
It needs to flow from one capture point to another without any of this pausing and restarting bs <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />

corpsman · October 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(James1986 @ Oct 14 2007, 06:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1656000"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I know this might have been mentioned before but has anyone played TFC 2 yet....? They have dynamic maps which change after every victory. Ill explain if people dont know what im talking about, but seriously... Its a feasably brilliant way of keeping the gameplay interesting!</div>

I have no idea what you are talking about because I don't play 2. Would you please explain? [I am benig serious, I don't play TF2, so please....]

Mindmeldme · October 2007

I haven't played TF 2 yet either but I get the general idea being refered to here. I think it would work in the sense of a "base or planet occupation" approach. This could be done for both NS and Combat maps. As one area of a base if occupied, say engineering or control etc. you would have them move to another part of the base either to defend or continue attacking. Now depending how you continued with tech advances, weapons, life forms, this could be very intersting. You could approach each win as a starting point, or you could keep some of the life forms or weapons about or lower the life forms for the Kahraa.

Regardless of that simple having a continuation would be nice to move from one part of a planet or base to another as you win or lose. Eventually the server could ship to another Base or planet, but for awhile you could play on just one base and go from location to location as you move to the main infestation point or space station.

Angelusz · October 2007

Although this would take a tremendous amount of very good and balanced maps to implement, the general idea is nice. I just don't think it's feasible to go for in the NS universe, which is so much more complicated than TF2's on its own.

James1986 · October 2007

Ok, heres why it does match the NS universe.

A space station is HUGE. Much bigger than one current NS map.... If you make the maps any bigger without having a massive amount of players you are going to find yourself lost, and spending most of your time running backwards and forwards between points trying to defend and attack.... its basically a non progressive kind of game.

So instead of one giagantic map, have 4 seperate sections of a space station each with its own victory conditions. For example, the space station is overrun and was abandoned years ago. Your mission is to cleanse the space station and regain control. SO... you land in the cargo bay undetected and build your base, but you need to return power to the main ship systems, and to do this you need to destroy the DI in a certain location....unfortunatly there is a hive base there. Once completed the next round starts and the next area in the map opens up. The aliens are now, obviously well aware of your presence and have taken defensive action. You now have to rebuild your base further into the space station, say the bridge, and then go about cleansing the area of DI. Doing this in certain places gives you more and better access to the technologies and strategic defence points located across the map, once done its on the the next round.

So on and so forth. Its basically up to the mappers to come up with interesting storylines and mapping ideas, but it allows a lot of freedom and diversity in what goes on. Don't waste your time finding errors with my explaination, its just an example...."what about the aliens, what if they win the first round...?" then its the next map idiot.

and heres a link for the guy wanting to know about the tfc2 maps...

<a href="http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=163472&site=pcg" target="_blank">http://www.computerandvideogames.com/artic...72&site=pcg</a>

theres also a video on the side explaining it.

MagicElemental · October 2007

Well such changes would be difficult to use for a ns_map rather than co_map. As an ns_map is more about building and taking time, such structure does not fit too well with a fast pace switch mini-maps built within a map mode.

Perhaps not a co_map or a ns_map exactly.

For instance the marines start on one side and aliens on another side. The marines have no commander, they have to get past the aliens in order to get plans/specific resources(a strange power source perhaps like a meteor?) to make shotguns for a limited amount of the marines, or some other type of upgrade. The aliens want to get past the marines for an upgrade of some kind (movement, sensory, defense, ability to get some as higher life forms). The upgrades would not be behind the respective teams, but located in random locations. Each mini-map would have a major goal besides upgrades. Each time a team wins a mini-map that will change a condition for the last map. For instance the first mini-map the marines repaired the generator and of course kept from being killed, maybe they welded/sealed it off behind doors, now after a few mini-maps when they get to the final map that actually counts to who wins a few marines friendly turrets are working thanks to the generator being up.

PS. Maybe each round would have class type structure instead of the upgrade thing. It's just more fun in my opinion when you have a mix of different alien forms and marines outfitted differently.

Steve0 · October 2007

The way it works is..

1 big map, all the map is divided into sections , A B C D E , 1 section of the map is played at a time. Given the fact its all in the same map so you dont have to reload/recache new data.

In a 5point section map it will start on point C 1st because its the middle section.

Both teams play a 2 node attack and defend objective. Now Point A/B will be Blue side/Marine, and point E/D will be red team/Aliens.

At point C depending on who caps the other teams node whislt defending there own will determine which part is played next, So if Marine wins at C, its going to advance to point D all teams get to go to spawn points again on that map and the round gets restarted, driving them back on there possesion of the map.

One team wins the map when the other team has been driven out of the map, like A B C D E all held by marine , marines win. But If aliens can put up a decent stand at E and take the marines node it will go back to point D , and then the D section of the map is played again, Aliens could even play all the way through to point C B and A if there good and possibly win at A and the map changes or gets a 2nd round.

Thats preety much how it works , it could work in a combat gametype but i couldnt see it working in vanilla tbh <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />.

Wyattx3 · October 2007

Yea, i wouldn't want to see this as a classic/vanilla type map, but it could be a way to make a different game type like combat a lot better.

Combat right now is usually a series of a few rooms with each side relatively close to one another so that gameplay is quick and forced on you. While its fun to have that kind of gameplay, it isnt fun to play for very long in the same set of a few rooms, and sometimes its annoying to have to play for 15 mins lose your upgrades and start on a new map.

Where as in this new type of gameplay, each team could fight over an objective for say 10-15 minutes, and when time is up or one team gets the objective the battlefield is moved to the next objective and you can keep your upgrades. So for the casual gamer you could play for 10-15 minutes and that round and still have the same feeling of accomplishment that a quick game of combat is now, and those that want to continue playing can keep playing in the new areas.

StixNStonz · October 2007

Theres a few ways this could be done. And it CAN be done in HL, its just that its fairly restrictive, and HL cant handle much total area, hence the blocked off parts would necessarily make the rest of the map that much smaller.

In Source though, you can go hog wild. Contrary to what someone suggested, these maps basically NEED to be restarted every time a section is opened/closed. Why? well, what will you do with the people stuck in the soon-to-be-closed section?

Perhaps the only way to do it without restarting, would be start with a small route of the map being all thats open (MS-Chemical-Sat Hive, in Tanith?), and then have it so that the rest of the map opens 20 seconds or so after Chem rt is built. Tanith would be a bad example (actually most NS maps would be), because it has so many chokepoints. Almost any closed-off-map scenario would be imbalanced.

Perhaps best would be to do this in Co. Make it objective-based; aliens spawn close to the marines, who can only run a fairly linear path towards a weldable; when they get the weldable, the self-destruct sequence is initiated and waiting for them to get to the escape pods. At that point, the aliens would spawn a bit further back, or at least have access to that part of the level. You could make quite a fun scenario with this.

But, again, HL1 is so limiting. You'd really have to watch the number of runtime entities. Lets do these things on Source.

And yeah, you can do anything you want on Source.

eoy · October 2007

This seems like a really nice idea, if it's kept to combat maps. I really like the picture of both teams trying to push eachother back and dominate over the other, it feels and sounds very ns-like to me.

On the negative side though, there's not very many persons working on NS, and nothing's been said about the implementation of combat mode yet as far as I know?

MagicElemental · October 2007

I was suggesting players would find upgrades for the team, perhaps you take the upgrade item to the automated command chair or aliens to the hive. Say the marines got an upgrade for a few shotguns, the game could drop the shotguns next to an armory that was automatically spawned with the command chair(no player is commanding). Every time one of the shotgun welding marines dies and after a short time, when the old one can not be picked off the ground, a new shotgun will spawn to replace. Perhaps players could get upgrades to increase the speed of spawn or amount of health/ammo packs the automated commander could drop based on if the players needed it and of course if they actually bothered to hit the button requesting said supplies. The upgrades would be maintained throughout the rounds making it a difficult choice to what degree do we want to go after the main objective which will effect the terrain, friendly turrets, etc on the final map, or is it more important to make sure we have a few jet packs or heavy armors moving around. The upgrade locations perhaps would be revealed to the marines because they have radar and it takes longer to move around from place to place. The marines would have to take it to their command chair anyways or maybe a resource refinery? Anyways the aliens would have a chance to try to stealth and follow the marines to an upgrade and ambush them so they could have an upgrade. The bases for both sides on the mini-maps would be protected turrets/offense chambers so players will focus on primarily on the upgrades and main objectives or multiple objectives. On the final map it would be a mix of kill the enemy team/complete objective(s). For the final map marines could have to weld up a communication terminals to receive storyline marines, aliens could do the reverse by having gorges infest it. Parts of the map would be closed/open and motion tracking would be on/off and scent of fear would be on/off and turrets would be active/deactive and areas would be infested/ordinary and flooded/ordinary based on the previous mini maps. Side objectives could determine a few of the side effects on the final map or even in some of the progressing maps. The weapon upgrades say for shotguns could instead of the previous method mentioned could instead give an intial drop amount say 2 and over time they would be dropped. Also for consideration would be if to really make the command chair automated or let it be par usual player controlled.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Most respondents play for the teamplay ...not "strategy", "commanding", "ambience" or "setting", but for "teamplay". "RTS/strategy" was close behind though I forgot to put in "action" as a choice so that might've changed the results.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/news/2007/01/ns_survey_results" target="_blank">Quote LINK</a>:</div>

This style of gameplay would push players to prioritize over upgrades/objectives hence team play and since upgrades are involved it is semi-RTS strategy(your team would still have structures that would have to be defened), also since their would be less if no building, the game would be more action oriented satisfying the more combat oriented players. Of course trying to satisfy everyone all the time does fail at times.

Another part to note:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Most of these results didn't surprise me, but "longer games" sure did. I think the bigger audience (ie, older audience, which I am) doesn't have the free time to enjoy longer games so that is my bias there. Most of our audience has 40-120 minutes to spend when they sit down to play. In contrast, most "casual" players probably have 10-15 minutes to play a game.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/news/2007/01/ns_survey_results" target="_blank">Quote LINK</a>:</div>

The mini maps are good for short-time players, it a case well I don't know if my team will win the final map, but I helped them. Of course for players who want to play for a long time they are given constant objectives and always have something to do, not waiting on resources to build up to drop a resource tower and would be assured of a long game.

James1986 · October 2007

Whilst I like all these ideas and they all appear to be well thought out, Im not sure people realise that actually I want the NS maps, not the CO maps to have this.

Co is good as it is, sure it could have this kind of map but the whole idea of CO is that it is fast paced small map fun. If you are going to change the areas battled in you might as well change the map. Theres no advantage of putting in more corridors and vents that just lead round another corner.......

In NS, if you take it exactly as it is in TF2 then you begin to see how much more exciting large maps become. Lets say for the benefit of explaination that we drop the idea of scenarios. (seriously I want them in though). You have several locations to spawn, not just for the aliens, but also for the marines. The server picks one each at random and then randomly fills in multiple corridors connecting the two with various other rooms (obviously set by the server admins) This can be things like, amount of RS towers, connecting rooms, objective points... etc etc...

It would then close off all the other passages with things like a hull breach, or cave in, or other impassable terrain options. Maybe you could even work to getting some of those open as part of an objective?

Then once the game has been won, a new round starts, and the server picks all over again. Same map, different start points, different routes!

Imagine you think you know where someone is coming from, and then BAM, that airlock you always walked passed because it was de- pressurised actually has been fixed, and lets the other team come at you from the side! Think you know where you are going, wrong, guess again. Can't siege spam there this time!!!

It adds excitement and variability where only after you have played about 16 versions of the same map, do the routes start to become the same. Takes a long time for people to remember the maps, which adds to the atmosphere of having to explore somewhere you supposedly havnt been in 200 years.

So no, this is too big for CO maps, but perfect for NS maps. Its even more perfect if they add scenario/campaign type maps which follow a sequence.

Kouji_San · October 2007

Well I like the TF2 idea, but it has to be fixed to be realtime instead of splitting it up into rounds or scenarios as you call them. Just create the large map and have damaged sections or cave-ins as you said already in there. But make the areas completely accessable and dynamic during a round (fixing/repairing/blowing a hole in it or other stuff to get to the area).

In this case you won't have the safety of capturing controlpoints like in TF2 and forgetting about that area. But make it so that you can fortify that area like it was done in Ns1.04 with actually building heavy defenses in important areas. And rightfully removed due to heavy strain on the engine, but also a real shame GoldSrc couldn't handle it <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />

This will imho give a much more dynamic gameflow and a very nice boost to the actuall RTS part of the game (which has been quite lacking in the latest versions). This also opens up outflanking and tactical movement to attack areas which were "safe", unlike TF2 which is just a concentrated mess of blasting on a single area. Seperating the capturing of control points into rounds or scenarios is annoying versus an ongoing gameplay on the same map. Also the control points should simply be that, points in a map of importance for you to control (double res, resource towers or some other stuff the devs can come up with like area control to increase resflow perhaps)

Sidenote:
Suddendeath has no place in this game, as suddendeath is simply a lazy mans way of "fixing" something which isn't broken in the first place <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> <-- I know you didn't meantion anything about suddendeath, but I just hate it that much. Especially since it was designed to shorten the endgame, but instead it actually slows down the game (just change the map or go to the next round already!!! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /> )

James1986 · October 2007

Valid point, however when I say rounds/scenarios, i dont just mean once somebody has caputured a control point, restart the map from a new location. I just mean making maps that arent the same every time you play them <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />...

You have two versions.... Progressive maps which once the other team has been destroyed or the objective filled, the new round starts and the level changes to another area on the ship or whatever (ie campaigns/scenarios such as siege.).... AND the maps which are the same but have different connecting corridors, rooms etc

and yes sudden death would be lame. You would have both teams camping behind sentries.

NEX9 · October 2007

i think it could make a whole new game type, but i dont want to think about that.

it would be great for CO maps, even Co maps could be made from maps hte size of ns maps. but i dont want to think about that ether.

i want to think about how this could better the NS_ game play if posable or at all. weld points obiously open up perticular points, but perhaps timers opening up new points on the map, new res, new routes.

or the odd objective set for one side to do get into said hive lock if down power up a core if core isnt destoryed opens up said path, if core destorys clsoe said path for entire map round and open up even more deadly path that benfits kharaa.

hhum at the 6th minute mark a new hive room opens up? ten minute mark another new hive room. allow for three hive upgaades but more than three hives to be built if one hive goes down another hive just takes its place.

thats what i want to think about but is its really nessacery to confuse or compound hte learnign cerve of the best game type NS_

James1986 · October 2007

Im sorry....WHAT.... I dont think any of that actually made any sense. This topic isnt about how you can weld points and build things and open corridors; its purely about the game engine controlling how a map is played. The server simply decides which parts of the map it wants to use based on variables input by the admin in the server config.

reznodes=12
connectingrooms=7
connectingcorridors=20

and so on. Then everytime a round starts, it rechooses all the routes.

Obviously the mapper makes the WHOLE map, but takes into account the fact that there are multiple spawn locations for either side, and different ways to get there.

If I have to, Im going to MS paint this to make it clear....

StixNStonz · October 2007

On the scale of NS Classic, i think it'd be impossible.

I havn't played TF2, but i'm assuming these maps have likely 3 'sections', or maybe 5. Then you have the two spawns, which in themselves dont count for the flag sections.

Then you have NS. Every RT is its own section. So you generally have 10. As you get more and more sections, i.e. more and more things that can be cut off, rerouted, intermixed and BALANCED, the difficulty of doing it right goes up exponentially.

James1986 · October 2007

Yes but isnt that the point of the source engine? That maps get more complex, and can actually be made more complex?

I for one would not be satisfied with simply an NS map just remade in the source engine. I want new technology to push the boundries of what it is capable of...

James1986 · October 2007

Yes but isnt that the point of the source engine? That maps get more complex, and can actually be made more complex?

I for one would not be satisfied with simply an NS map just remade in the source engine. I want new technology to push the boundries of what it is capable of...

StixNStonz · October 2007

Source is to look prettier, and rooms can be more complex, but not the layouts.

NS already has the largest indoor maps of any game out there, at least from what i've ever seen (and i've seen most games worth seeing). If you want more complexity, more depth, more routes and dynamics in a map, go try my map, ns_nexus. Or Machina. We pulled those maps off in HL1 by really knowing how to optimize and work the age old engine...

BUT, the only complaints about Nexus and Machina are that they're too complex. Just because you CAN make bigger maps in Source doesnt mean you should. The NS1 mapping guidelines explain that runtimes from Marine Spawn to any hive should be around 30-35 seconds. This is because as you go higher, they just start becoming too complex for your average gamer. A lot of people cant learn big maps that quickly. And look at ALL the CS:S, or DOD:S, or Quake 4, or Doom 3 maps or whatever... they're all still minuscule in overall size compared to NS1 maps.

So yes, maps will definitely be more complex, but on the room-by-room basis, not overall.

John Top · October 2007

I posted this in the "NS2 and Combat" thread, but it seems to fit well in here too, so I'm reposting it. Sorry if it's not necessary.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>You know, I was kind've thinking about this and the whole "dynamic maps" thing, and I'm not sure which thread this would fit in.

What if the first round of the game was played as a combat map, and then, after a winner and loser are defined, the map would either open up (or change to a new map) that reflected a clear offensive/defensive team.

Like, if the aliens win, they start with a foward hive location (that can't be rebuilt) and the marines have to fight twice as hard to take back that position, and move up to reclaim the lost areas from losing the combat round.

From there, if the marines win, the map changes to reflect a marine foward position into alien territory, and the marines would be more on the offensive, and the aliens on a defensive.

This way, you get a fast paced round, and at least one normal strategic round. Players (like me) who suck at DM style games, would lose the combat round, but the strategy involved in reclaiming lost ground could always overcome the twitchy, bawls infused, dorito bearded team that is screaming "You stole my kill you ###### monger!"

This allows for an integration of combat to have an effect on the outcome on "the war," without removing it from the game. It falls in line with Charlie and Max's "embracing" of everything that the community wants.

For those that want combat only, it'd just be a matter of changing the "scenario" objectives to remove all the maps (or variables) that are determined at victory.</div>

James1986 · October 2007

Thats a good idea, but you would have to balance it effectively. Usually when you try to include everything everybody wants into a game then you end up with a game thats pretty crap. What you would really need to do is include more game types, similar to the ones previously suggested. Your idea would fit into the Scenario/Campaign section.

In reply to sticksnstonz,

The maps will be overall the same size, they just wont be the same every time you play them. Like I said before I dont want them to be massive. Getting lost defeats the point of the game. I just want them to change and evolve when I play them, so Im not running round the same boring map time after time.

Angelusz · October 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(James1986 @ Oct 19 2007, 03:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1656815"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Thats a good idea, but you would have to balance it effectively. Usually when you try to include everything everybody wants into a game then you end up with a game thats pretty crap. What you would really need to do is include more game types, similar to the ones previously suggested. Your idea would fit into the Scenario/Campaign section.

In reply to sticksnstonz,

The maps will be overall the same size, they just wont be the same every time you play them. Like I said before I dont want them to be massive. Getting lost defeats the point of the game. I just want them to change and evolve when I play them, so Im not running round the same boring map time after time.</div>
Just make the maps really interesting, and you won't be running around the same <b>boring</b> map all the time.

yoda · October 2007

I didn't read all of the above posts (tldr) however I think there is need for some clarification of dynamic. The dynamic I would like - but I don't think its quite possible yet is stuff like random ceilings falling down or beams (iron girders - yes i know spacecraft wouldn't use iron girders but metal ones) falling down in hall ways making it hard to get through that the dynamic infestation could grow over and stuff, or glass cracking sucking out people until an airlock is re-established on the afflicted area - this is what I regard to be truly dynamic and that fit into the NS universe. Not what has been done in TF2, the opening of a generic boring gate to a generic boring corridor to the exactly the same next area instead of a slightly different approach by lifting a garage door is pretty sad imo. Also as said above it ends and then makes a door open or close and its basically like starting again on a new map it should happen real time so a direction of an attack or defense is totally changed, making the game-play in-fact dynamic, and not just simple variations of a generic map structure every-time its loaded.

James1986 · October 2007

Why not have both yoda? Maps which are interactive as well as dynamic + random!

yoda · October 2007

Thats kinda what I was trying to say.

Dynamic Maps

Comments