Entity Request: res_rate_control
the_x5
the Xzianthian Join Date: 2004-03-02 Member: 27041Members, Constellation
the Xzianthian Join Date: 2004-03-02 Member: 27041Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">function takes new rate, returns override default rate</div><u><b>Note/Aside to the Moderators</b></u>: if you need to move this topic into a better catagory please do, BUT please also leave the "phased topic" thread link to this topic in <i>this</i> forum so others can find it. Thank you.
<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>The problem:</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> We frequently have trouble with finding the magic balance between comebacks and stalemates, short games and long games, where in one instance it may be great fun, an epic battle with grueling stalemates and suprising comebacks or in othercases it can be a one-sided doomed slaughter or boring stalemate. Frequently this is all related to the tech aquired by resources and at what rate. Such debate spawned the concept of the Combat mode (with high hopes of it being a training mode if I'm not forgetting), nostalgia for those long "epic" games seen in the early years of the game's life, and many of bittersweet or flame-ridden topics in the NS General Forum, I&S, and others. Perhaps it is time to rethink how the game lives and empower the prosumers of the community for NS2.
<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>Solution Idea Summary:</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> Allow mappers to adjust the resource tick rate and/or quantity per tick and/or skips per tick though a gameplay entity compiled in the map that can be read by engine code to allow this adjustment
<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>Reasoning/Why:</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> As part of empowering the prosumers in the NS community, this would allow map designers in both pre- and post- release to have control of allowing triggers in the game to control and adapt the economy pace for the teams. There could be time-triggered or event-triggered (cause event being say destroying a reactor or an important structure in an area for another team) situation that would make this gameplay entity alter the resource rate. This may seem uncertain at first but think of this example:
<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>Example Scenario:</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> This is NS2. The aliens have had teams stacked with sharpshooters who always play marines on that team. Gorges have done well with early building and capping nodes but the marine offense is just better skilled than the alien offense and the game quickly turns exponentially bad for the aliens in about 100-200 seconds. The aliens are set to give yet another certain loss just like in the days of NS v3.2 and people would start rage-quitting at the seemingly inevitable doom, YET as I said this is a NS2 map which has this res_rate_control entity incorporated into the design. Aliens can reduce the marines resource income rate by taking out the ship's reactor power relay to the nanogrid (or whatever), but only when the conditions of the marines controlling five nodes and the game-time is greater than or equal to five minutes. Since both cases will be true for the alien team in about 45 seconds they assemble an organized team-effort offensive to take out this chink in the marines armor. Several of the marines who had never considered anything but a crushing victory find themselves far away on their rambo hunting expeitions too far away to help or have squad spawning be of any use. Aliens take out the reactor, marine commander gets mad (and possibly ejected too), and now the marines find the aliens taking back the map and setting up new hives. Now the marines are trapped in MS and all looks lost. Time for the lame quitters to F4 right? NO! I SAID THIS IS NS2. If the marines can sneak a squad down to the ancient crystal in the heart of the Kharaa infested sewer and destroy it they can cause another res_rate_control event reducing Kharaa / restoring Marine resource rates. And the powershifts again. Now that sounds like a fun game, no? Two major comebacks possible, constantly shifting between defeat and victory, the end UNPREDICTABLE for many, many minutes (which is the exact god damn opposite of how most games are in NS 3.2 today where you can predict with very good chances what the outcome will be a mere 60 seconds into the action). Why people wouldn't even want to give up as much because they believe it is possible to make a comeback if they work as a team and try. Trying to work as a team is what NS was all about and hopefully what NS2 will be all about.
<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>Pro's:</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><ul><li>Empowers the prosumer, something very strong anyways given the history of this community and has always yielded amazing results and evolved over the months and years since Halloween 2002.</li><li>Could provide and adaptive means to solving the conflicts of games not having a rewarding feeling (win OR loose), an epic feeling, comebacks, fun defensive holding-the-line, fun offensive battles, new tactics in public and competitive play gain an edge to win, new hazards to be in suspenseful tension about loosing, and many more possbilities that previously couldn't exist in most games because of the universal constant and unforgiving resource-to-technology/upgrades flow.</li><li>Could allow for a game to start out as strategic stealth action (very slow res rate) and end up as a violent chaotic chaos seen in siege and combat maps (very fast res) IN THE SAME GAME.</li><li>Could increase entropy in gameplay by giving new objectives and areas to control besides just resource nodes and spawn locations. Gives a unique non-linear aspect to NS2 which will be well remembered and promises a ton of clever (perhaps puzzle-game-aspect-like) fun.</li><li>Could increase entropy in map design by giving mappers the ability to choose or not to choose to alter the resource rates</li></ul><!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>Con's:</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><ul><li>Presents a degree of risk in that it is a depature to what we (current community) are used to an will have few people whine about it until they get used to it</li><li>Removes some of the complete control developers would have over the game (Thus answers the question of whether Max and Charlie are more control freaks or paradigms of laissez faire. *zing* <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> )</li><li>Some post-release unofficial maps will be unbalanced, and mappers who choose to use this entity will have to consider the time to balance it properly but some will be lazy. Expect that.</li></ul><!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>Phase implementation recommendation:</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> Any of the first three phases in the SDLC, perhaps Software Requirement Analysis is most recommendable
For the general uninformed public's reference (I am assuming UWE adopts a model somewhat related to this
<!--QuoteBegin-SDLC explaination+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SDLC explaination)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A. System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) Model
This is also known as Classic Life Cycle Model (or) Linear Sequential Model (or) Waterfall Method. This model has the following activities.
1. System/Information Engineering and Modeling
As software is always of a large system (or business), work begins by establishing the requirements for all system elements and then allocating some subset of these requirements to software. This system view is essential when the software must interface with other elements such as hardware, people and other resources. System is the basic and very critical requirement for the existence of software in any entity. So if the system is not in place, the system should be engineered and put in place. In some cases, to extract the maximum output, the system should be re-engineered and spruced up. Once the ideal system is engineered or tuned, the development team studies the software requirement for the system.
2. Software Requirement Analysis
This process is also known as feasibility study. In this phase, the development team visits the customer and studies their system. They investigate the need for possible software automation in the given system. By the end of the feasibility study, the team furnishes a document that holds the different specific recommendations for the candidate system. It also includes the personnel assignments, costs, project schedule, target dates etc.... The requirement gathering process is intensified and focussed specially on software. To understand the nature of the program(s) to be built, the system engineer or "Analyst" must understand the information domain for the software, as well as required function, behavior, performance and interfacing. The essential purpose of this phase is to find the need and to define the problem that needs to be solved .
3. System Analysis and Design
In this phase, the software development process, the software's overall structure and its nuances are defined. In terms of the client/server technology, the number of tiers needed for the package architecture, the database design, the data structure design etc... are all defined in this phase. A software development model is thus created. Analysis and Design are very crucial in the whole development cycle. Any glitch in the design phase could be very expensive to solve in the later stage of the software development. Much care is taken during this phase. The logical system of the product is developed in this phase.
4. Code Generation
The design must be translated into a machine-readable form. The code generation step performs this task. If the design is performed in a detailed manner, code generation can be accomplished without much complication. Programming tools like compilers, interpreters, debuggers etc... are used to generate the code. Different high level programming languages like C, C++, Pascal, Java are used for coding. With respect to the type of application, the right programming language is chosen.
5. Testing
Once the code is generated, the software program testing begins. Different testing methodologies are available to unravel the bugs that were committed during the previous phases. Different testing tools and methodologies are already available. Some companies build their own testing tools that are tailor made for their own development operations.
6. Maintenance
The software will definitely undergo change once it is delivered to the customer. There can be many reasons for this change to occur. Change could happen because of some unexpected input values into the system. In addition, the changes in the system could directly affect the software operations. The software should be developed to accommodate changes that could happen during the post implementation period.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>PS: <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->I am not a forum moderator, so I wouldn't dream of telling you what to post and what not to post<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
Thank you and I welcome constructive and critical community feedback regarding this idea. Sincerely,
<b><!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><!--sizeo:5--><span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->x5<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>The problem:</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> We frequently have trouble with finding the magic balance between comebacks and stalemates, short games and long games, where in one instance it may be great fun, an epic battle with grueling stalemates and suprising comebacks or in othercases it can be a one-sided doomed slaughter or boring stalemate. Frequently this is all related to the tech aquired by resources and at what rate. Such debate spawned the concept of the Combat mode (with high hopes of it being a training mode if I'm not forgetting), nostalgia for those long "epic" games seen in the early years of the game's life, and many of bittersweet or flame-ridden topics in the NS General Forum, I&S, and others. Perhaps it is time to rethink how the game lives and empower the prosumers of the community for NS2.
<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>Solution Idea Summary:</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> Allow mappers to adjust the resource tick rate and/or quantity per tick and/or skips per tick though a gameplay entity compiled in the map that can be read by engine code to allow this adjustment
<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>Reasoning/Why:</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> As part of empowering the prosumers in the NS community, this would allow map designers in both pre- and post- release to have control of allowing triggers in the game to control and adapt the economy pace for the teams. There could be time-triggered or event-triggered (cause event being say destroying a reactor or an important structure in an area for another team) situation that would make this gameplay entity alter the resource rate. This may seem uncertain at first but think of this example:
<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>Example Scenario:</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> This is NS2. The aliens have had teams stacked with sharpshooters who always play marines on that team. Gorges have done well with early building and capping nodes but the marine offense is just better skilled than the alien offense and the game quickly turns exponentially bad for the aliens in about 100-200 seconds. The aliens are set to give yet another certain loss just like in the days of NS v3.2 and people would start rage-quitting at the seemingly inevitable doom, YET as I said this is a NS2 map which has this res_rate_control entity incorporated into the design. Aliens can reduce the marines resource income rate by taking out the ship's reactor power relay to the nanogrid (or whatever), but only when the conditions of the marines controlling five nodes and the game-time is greater than or equal to five minutes. Since both cases will be true for the alien team in about 45 seconds they assemble an organized team-effort offensive to take out this chink in the marines armor. Several of the marines who had never considered anything but a crushing victory find themselves far away on their rambo hunting expeitions too far away to help or have squad spawning be of any use. Aliens take out the reactor, marine commander gets mad (and possibly ejected too), and now the marines find the aliens taking back the map and setting up new hives. Now the marines are trapped in MS and all looks lost. Time for the lame quitters to F4 right? NO! I SAID THIS IS NS2. If the marines can sneak a squad down to the ancient crystal in the heart of the Kharaa infested sewer and destroy it they can cause another res_rate_control event reducing Kharaa / restoring Marine resource rates. And the powershifts again. Now that sounds like a fun game, no? Two major comebacks possible, constantly shifting between defeat and victory, the end UNPREDICTABLE for many, many minutes (which is the exact god damn opposite of how most games are in NS 3.2 today where you can predict with very good chances what the outcome will be a mere 60 seconds into the action). Why people wouldn't even want to give up as much because they believe it is possible to make a comeback if they work as a team and try. Trying to work as a team is what NS was all about and hopefully what NS2 will be all about.
<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>Pro's:</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><ul><li>Empowers the prosumer, something very strong anyways given the history of this community and has always yielded amazing results and evolved over the months and years since Halloween 2002.</li><li>Could provide and adaptive means to solving the conflicts of games not having a rewarding feeling (win OR loose), an epic feeling, comebacks, fun defensive holding-the-line, fun offensive battles, new tactics in public and competitive play gain an edge to win, new hazards to be in suspenseful tension about loosing, and many more possbilities that previously couldn't exist in most games because of the universal constant and unforgiving resource-to-technology/upgrades flow.</li><li>Could allow for a game to start out as strategic stealth action (very slow res rate) and end up as a violent chaotic chaos seen in siege and combat maps (very fast res) IN THE SAME GAME.</li><li>Could increase entropy in gameplay by giving new objectives and areas to control besides just resource nodes and spawn locations. Gives a unique non-linear aspect to NS2 which will be well remembered and promises a ton of clever (perhaps puzzle-game-aspect-like) fun.</li><li>Could increase entropy in map design by giving mappers the ability to choose or not to choose to alter the resource rates</li></ul><!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>Con's:</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><ul><li>Presents a degree of risk in that it is a depature to what we (current community) are used to an will have few people whine about it until they get used to it</li><li>Removes some of the complete control developers would have over the game (Thus answers the question of whether Max and Charlie are more control freaks or paradigms of laissez faire. *zing* <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> )</li><li>Some post-release unofficial maps will be unbalanced, and mappers who choose to use this entity will have to consider the time to balance it properly but some will be lazy. Expect that.</li></ul><!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>Phase implementation recommendation:</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> Any of the first three phases in the SDLC, perhaps Software Requirement Analysis is most recommendable
For the general uninformed public's reference (I am assuming UWE adopts a model somewhat related to this
<!--QuoteBegin-SDLC explaination+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SDLC explaination)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A. System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) Model
This is also known as Classic Life Cycle Model (or) Linear Sequential Model (or) Waterfall Method. This model has the following activities.
1. System/Information Engineering and Modeling
As software is always of a large system (or business), work begins by establishing the requirements for all system elements and then allocating some subset of these requirements to software. This system view is essential when the software must interface with other elements such as hardware, people and other resources. System is the basic and very critical requirement for the existence of software in any entity. So if the system is not in place, the system should be engineered and put in place. In some cases, to extract the maximum output, the system should be re-engineered and spruced up. Once the ideal system is engineered or tuned, the development team studies the software requirement for the system.
2. Software Requirement Analysis
This process is also known as feasibility study. In this phase, the development team visits the customer and studies their system. They investigate the need for possible software automation in the given system. By the end of the feasibility study, the team furnishes a document that holds the different specific recommendations for the candidate system. It also includes the personnel assignments, costs, project schedule, target dates etc.... The requirement gathering process is intensified and focussed specially on software. To understand the nature of the program(s) to be built, the system engineer or "Analyst" must understand the information domain for the software, as well as required function, behavior, performance and interfacing. The essential purpose of this phase is to find the need and to define the problem that needs to be solved .
3. System Analysis and Design
In this phase, the software development process, the software's overall structure and its nuances are defined. In terms of the client/server technology, the number of tiers needed for the package architecture, the database design, the data structure design etc... are all defined in this phase. A software development model is thus created. Analysis and Design are very crucial in the whole development cycle. Any glitch in the design phase could be very expensive to solve in the later stage of the software development. Much care is taken during this phase. The logical system of the product is developed in this phase.
4. Code Generation
The design must be translated into a machine-readable form. The code generation step performs this task. If the design is performed in a detailed manner, code generation can be accomplished without much complication. Programming tools like compilers, interpreters, debuggers etc... are used to generate the code. Different high level programming languages like C, C++, Pascal, Java are used for coding. With respect to the type of application, the right programming language is chosen.
5. Testing
Once the code is generated, the software program testing begins. Different testing methodologies are available to unravel the bugs that were committed during the previous phases. Different testing tools and methodologies are already available. Some companies build their own testing tools that are tailor made for their own development operations.
6. Maintenance
The software will definitely undergo change once it is delivered to the customer. There can be many reasons for this change to occur. Change could happen because of some unexpected input values into the system. In addition, the changes in the system could directly affect the software operations. The software should be developed to accommodate changes that could happen during the post implementation period.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>PS: <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->I am not a forum moderator, so I wouldn't dream of telling you what to post and what not to post<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
Thank you and I welcome constructive and critical community feedback regarding this idea. Sincerely,
<b><!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><!--sizeo:5--><span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->x5<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
Comments
I think I'll hold off on judgment.
Pro:
Adds strategic depth to gameplay
Con:
Relies on the mapmaker
Makes the game that much harder for a NSPlayer
If every map would have these objectives built in I'd vote yes, otherwise no.
I like that Empires Mod allows server-side to load config files for the server in general and specific for each map, allowing the server op to tweak variables such as starting res, res generation rate, and starting spawn tickets. Sure it makes it a little jarring jumping from a fast res server to a vanilla, but it helps so that the server can cater to different crowds and help balance a map without entity ripping.
TF2 actually has quite a few config commands that can be for the server or map-specifically changed, I just don't usually use them since the maps tend to be OK for my taste. I just change the re-spawn timer, but that requires entity ripping. Gr... Valve.
However, please realize that this is so much more far reaching than mere comebacks! This is about overcomming a fundmental weakness in an important factor in the game.
What weakness am I refering to?
Simply that the resource model is a blanket of uniformity and affected noticably in game by the number of people in the game and how many resource nodes there are.
This entity is a perfect way for mappers to fine tune those balancing issues, make them dynamic, make them affected by events allowing optional ogbjectives to be achieved and so much more gameplay depth capability.
(Why am I getting the feeling the general public isn't understanding me here?)
But, objectives-based gameplay in a multiplayer game isn't cool. And it removes a certain uniformity to maps (you have to learn maps, rather than learn the game - although, this is already the case in NS1 I suppose?) See: Dystopia ?
Eh, I'm sure someone else could explain it better but I hope you get the general idea.
In the end, you'll still get your 10 hour long public games which will be decided by whichever side has the most sentry guns up.
Yes, I do believe that there is a problem with the resource system, but I generally feel that adding a single map-based objective will be a huge step backwards in regard to fixing it.
and teams fighting for something like a doubleres location to change resflow and -income,
when it comes to the results of those fights.
It just seems too complicated for me just for a small twist in the ressource game of a round.
I rather go with multiple doubleres locations to keep the game more simple considering all the possible new players.
You don't even need multiple doubleres locations, because you can watch ns-games all the time, where one team gets rather dominated, but does a very good joob on the res game to finally pull off a comeback.
Eh, I'm sure someone else could explain it better but I hope you get the general idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree with your opinion statement followed be slippery-slope logic. Not only that but saying that learning the game and learing the maps/terrain are antonyms is incorrect. The maps are part of the game, you should have said gameplay. But even than I have to disagree that blanket uniformity is always a good thing, it isn't in fact it's part of the problem (and I think we are even talking about different uniformities: resource rate uniformity vs. gameplay uniformity. They are not the same). Lastly, this doesn't really compare with Dystopia at all. It's an option that is available to the mappers for fine tuning an optional objective-based actions that can allow for more enjoyable longer game with powershifts (which has something the vast majority of the community on this board and in the game have said for <i>years</i> is a good thing). One of the complaints in fact was that the game could get to be too static as in the case of marine turtles in an alien hive NS v2.1, but even then it was considered by others with a hint of nostalgia as a ton of fun for both teams since it was all about a thin fleeting line of control where everybody had to put in 100% effort or you would loose (aliens trying to finish them off and make coordinated strikes, marines making a last stand). Yet part of what made people fight it out to the end in versions v1.04 and v2.1 and not in v3.0, v3.1, v3.2 was there was a chance to comeback with enough teamworking effort. Nowadays everybody on the loosing just gives up at the first sign of loosing territory. How many games have you seen where people either F4 or got try to rambo off or build a gorge fort when the winning team is seiging the base? Too many IMHO!
I want mappers to be able to inspire people to keep up the fight (hope?), too fine tune the tech balance so that the game is fun for everybody. Landside win-loose games every game isn't any more fun than stalemates from infinite turret farms or WoL's.
<!--quoteo(post=1673321:date=Mar 15 2008, 11:36 AM:name=Domining)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Domining @ Mar 15 2008, 11:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673321"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The resource model in NS does need a ton of work. But I doubt that adding a huge objective which when one team accomplishes severely weakens the opposing team is going to remedy it much. In fact, it can only hurt it because games will turn into huge turtlematches with both sides defending their power cores/crystal shards or whatever it is that you are proposing.
In the end, you'll still get your 10 hour long public games which will be decided by whichever side has the most sentry guns up.
Yes, I do believe that there is a problem with the resource system, but I generally feel that adding a single map-based objective will be a huge step backwards in regard to fixing it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How huge depends on the mapper. How many static (or dynamic) defenses costs depends on the developers. Those are assumptions, which come from different versions of NS (2.1 and 3.2 if I'm not mistaken) which may not be true at all for NS2.
Why not allow mappers the power to fine tune resource income rates to each map based on control?
<!--quoteo(post=1673325:date=Mar 15 2008, 11:53 AM:name=pSyk0mAn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pSyk0mAn @ Mar 15 2008, 11:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673325"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see the difference between teams fighting for certain locations to change resflow and -income
and teams fighting for something like a doubleres location to change resflow and -income,
when it comes to the results of those fights.
It just seems too complicated for me just for a small twist in the ressource game of a round.
I rather go with multiple doubleres locations to keep the game more simple considering all the possible new players.
You don't even need multiple doubleres locations, because you can watch ns-games all the time, where one team gets rather dominated, but does a very good joob on the res game to finally pull off a comeback.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are completely different. Even in my example it runs with specific conditions of one team in control of a certain # of resource nodes. Thus you wouldn't worry about them all the time, but certain situations. If you assume that hives will be able to be dynamic in their location just like marines with their command chair (talking relocations here), then this really allows objective to switch locations all over the map.
When I say 'learning the map' that means learning what to do specifically in a map - this means learning how to get around the map, which routes are quickest, which are popular for travel and ambush etc., and in the idea you've presented you're adding to that by necessitating map-specific objectives, and likely an order to go with them.
When I say 'learning the game' I mean the game as a whole: the basic FPS stuff first (movement, shooting, etc.), then the RTS elements - that is, the objective being winning rounds against an <b>opponent team</b> rather than killing <b>individual opponents</b> <i>(and again, when I say 'rather than' I'm not saying it's not there, just that it's not or shouldn't be the focus)</i>, dependence on and obedience to the commander, weapon and equipment allocation, buildings and placement, area and resource control, etc.
My belief is that in a multi-player game players should have to focus mainly on learning the game, rather than the maps. If it were a single-player game, then learning map- or rather level-specific objectives is important - even necessary; but not so in a multiplayer game.
NS is already a very complex game - even the "basic FPS stuff" is probably more complex than in many other FPS games <i>(you actually have to look Up for one thing)</i>, then you add to that the RTS elements, a whole team focused on melee <i>(which sucks in FPS games, btw; there's a reason they're called shooters)</i>, and a relatively free-roaming map that you have to learn all the relevant bits to: There's already enough on a gamer's plate.
But really, the above argument is mostly about learning, and you may rebut by saying "I think players like me are more patient than you're giving them credit for, enough to learn the individual maps and their objectives" but I have to say "they shouldn't have to."
Other than that though, and perhaps more importantly, map-specific objectives just aren't fun - even though the idea behind the opening suggestion is to increase the fun factor of games by introducing "come backs" and such - I just don't think it'd work.
<b>Edit:</b> Err, the above is an argument against <i>map-specific objectives</i>. If you can make games more fun by giving the mapper better tools then I don't see why not. Just no (ordered?) objectives, please; that isn't fun.
<!--quoteo(post=1673347:date=Mar 15 2008, 04:30 PM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Mar 15 2008, 04:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673347"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How huge depends on the mapper. How many static (or dynamic) defenses costs depends on the developers. Those are assumptions, which come from different versions of NS (2.1 and 3.2 if I'm not mistaken) which may not be true at all for NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, then they aren't that big of a deal. They'd essentially be the equivalent of weld points/alien infestation points which disable an rt or 2.
I seriously hope that neither team will be able to make too drastic of a comeback just by rolling a lucky die and having the opposing team fail a saving throw. That would throw the whole concept of territorial control out of the window.
Hi guys, I'm 0-12, I'm just going to go through that vent right thur, throw my hitbox past some helen keller marines that miss whole clips at onoses and negate all of enigma's hard work by parasiting some wall switch half way across the map triggering a nuke in marine start.
I seriously hope that neither team will be able to make too drastic of a comeback just by rolling a lucky die and having the opposing team fail a saving throw. That would throw the whole concept of territorial control out of the window.
Hi guys, I'm 0-12, I'm just going to go through that vent right thur, throw my hitbox past some helen keller marines that miss whole clips at onoses and negate all of enigma's hard work by parasiting some wall switch half way across the map triggering a nuke in marine start.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kind of yeah... no they aren't as big of a deal as the initial fearful reactions were leaning, I just think the fine tuning should be done per map coupled with the ability to generate more enjoyable game by allowing the <i>possibility </i>(but certainly NEVER a guarantee) for a comeback <i>if </i>the team unites with enough <i>team effort</i>. (this goes back to the long-standing, very strong feeling in this general community that teamplay is more enjoyable for the whole of the server than solo stat-whoring by lightyears)
PS: The D&D reference is great! Thanks! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
My biggest complaint would be the difficultly of the map building. While dynamic res flow would be cool, and it opens up alot of possibilities (certain nodes are more valuable, perhaps individual control of a hard to control location gives a slight edge making maps unstable equilibrium, etc) some map makers have issues as it is to develop well-designed maps.
I also have never been a fan of being forced to learn a map in NS. I've always thought of NS more as a RTS game where you adapt your strategies a little to a new situation. Forcing people to learn maps tends to backfire. This is the weakness of objective based games. TF2 tried to remove this as much as possible by making the maps a intuitive as possible. UT uses a trail of light to show you a recommended next objective path even on capture the flag maps. Letting people play and learn the maps as they go instead of sitting in a war room planning for 5 minutes on each detail of a map is where I'd rather NS went.
Finally, it could grant or loose organic gameplay. Potentially the dynamic res could provide very interesting games. What if a bonus res location moved around the map? Talk about both teams being forced to fight for every part of the map instead of simple battle lines. The edge case would be as someone mentioned just a hunker down spam random stuff and pray to the gods of the lucky dice roll. It could force players to play the map in search of a stale optimal control system.
Basically, I really, really like where this could go. I'm hesitant because it shifts more power to the map maker, and not only do they have a hard enough time as it is, but it could create maps where we are forced to play how the map maker thought it should be, not allowing impromptu strategies that are tweaked to the situation.
Thanks. (although to some degree I'm like, "Wha--?! I always have my ideas formatted like this. I'm just always giving feedback to other's ideas and rarely my own)
<!--quoteo(post=1673940:date=Mar 22 2008, 03:06 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Mar 22 2008, 03:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673940"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My biggest complaint would be the difficultly of the map building. While dynamic res flow would be cool, and it opens up alot of possibilities (certain nodes are more valuable, perhaps individual control of a hard to control location gives a slight edge making maps unstable equilibrium, etc) some map makers have issues as it is to develop well-designed maps.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that's why I listed it as one of the "cons" to this idea. Sorry, if I wasn't clear. It does raise the bar for NS maps. But that's where UWE's specifically stated system (per Charlie "Flayra" Cleveland) about making a NS2TR, releasing it, and selecting the best made maps to be official.
I envision this but a step further:
CONTINUE having this contest on an annual basis. Best maps get added to the latest version and thereby made official and solving this problem to a large degree.
Why? Well because if the map isn't highly rated or official then you as a server admins should know that people may end up hating it very much and any complaints about balance should be FUBAR. Now that begs the question won't that decrease the amount of custom map making? I say no because if new maps are make official annually then there is a regular contest to make an official map whether just for fame or for a little fortune too (talking about UWE paying mappers who made a map that went official). Blizzard already kind of does this, but their only pay-out is internet fame. Bonus income speaks louder than mere words.
What we would see is a enormous increase in the quality of maps and even some healthy, community-growing competition gearing up in the kind-of dead mapper forum on this board.
<!--quoteo(post=1673940:date=Mar 22 2008, 03:06 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Mar 22 2008, 03:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673940"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I also have never been a fan of being forced to learn a map in NS. I've always thought of NS more as a RTS game where you adapt your strategies a little to a new situation. Forcing people to learn maps tends to backfire. This is the weakness of objective based games. TF2 tried to remove this as much as possible by making the maps a intuitive as possible. UT uses a trail of light to show you a recommended next objective path even on capture the flag maps. Letting people play and learn the maps as they go instead of sitting in a war room planning for 5 minutes on each detail of a map is where I'd rather NS went.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Depends on your mapper. It's optional so some maps for simplicity's sake won't touch it. Others shouldn't touch it simply because they suck & blow at map making. (but don't worry, people will ignore those maps)
PS: It must be recommended on all relevant NS mapping help/FAQ sites that this entity should be left alone unless you are experienced and certainly left alone until you are beta-testing it.
<!--quoteo(post=1673940:date=Mar 22 2008, 03:06 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Mar 22 2008, 03:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673940"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Finally, it could grant or loose organic gameplay. Potentially the dynamic res could provide very interesting games. What if a bonus res location moved around the map? Talk about both teams being forced to fight for every part of the map instead of simple battle lines. The edge case would be as someone mentioned just a hunker down spam random stuff and pray to the gods of the lucky dice roll. It could force players to play the map in search of a stale optimal control system.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Half FPS - Half KotH style RTS? Interesting... (KotH = King of the Hill, where players try to control the "hill")
<!--quoteo(post=1673940:date=Mar 22 2008, 03:06 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Mar 22 2008, 03:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673940"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Basically, I really, really like where this could go. I'm hesitant because it shifts more power to the map maker, and not only do they have a hard enough time as it is, but it could create maps where we are forced to play how the map maker thought it should be, not allowing impromptu strategies that are tweaked to the situation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the fear of change I'm talking about. I remember plenty of complaints about things that were added to the game when the original NS went from v1.04 to v2.1 that ended up being <i>loved</i>. Of course there are those things (babblers and "epic games" for example) that people wish were back in the game for NS2, but my point is that it is normal for many ideas to be shunned before they are liked. It is necessary to temper and forge a stronger idea and remove the impurities and lesser ideas. Just try to keep an open mind. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
what about making each resource node have a variable to decide how fast each node gives out res. that way the mappers would have many more options, they could even have huge comebacks possible, or completely removed any possibility of a stalemate by changing the resflow of one team based on how many nodes the other team has.
or there could be specialty nodes, instead of having double res nodes in a room, there could be a node that goes twice as fast, but only depending on some switch somewhere else in the level.
consider a node that normally only gives out half res, but then theres a switch in a different part of the level that will make that node give out double res. this would add in a new strategy of controlling both points for double res flow. thats just an example, but tons of possibilities could be made from this.
what about making each resource node have a variable to decide how fast each node gives out res. that way the mappers would have many more options, they could even have huge comebacks possible, or completely removed any possibility of a stalemate by changing the resflow of one team based on how many nodes the other team has.
or there could be specialty nodes, instead of having double res nodes in a room, there could be a node that goes twice as fast, but only depending on some switch somewhere else in the level.
consider a node that normally only gives out half res, but then theres a switch in a different part of the level that will make that node give out double res. this would add in a new strategy of controlling both points for double res flow. thats just an example, but tons of possibilities could be made from this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm torn. Having different res rates <i>could</i> add strategic depth to the game, but I'm more inclined to believe that higher output nodes would be objectively better and actually constrain strategy. If the higher output nodes are close to a team's base then you can guarantee that node will be capped first 90% of the time.
If these nodes are near the middle of the map then you run into the snowball effect: the team that holds more nodes gains a more substantial res advantage and steamrolls the other team. This may be a desired outcome to end games earlier, but I think the competitive perspective(and my own fun perspective) appreciates a more back and forth natural type of gameplay to steamroll.
Starcraft is a great game, but expanding in NS and SC are completely different, and not to NS's detriment. In NS you need to expand, and right away. You can't hold off on taking your "naturals". This is done for the benefit of the FPS side, forcing the players into conflict as soon as possible.
Using your analogy, each rt near the marine start is currently a natural expansion. Making one of those have a res bonus doesn't really add any strategy depth to the game, and in fact decreases it because the strategic depth of NS comes from where to expand, not when to expand like starcraft.
If marines or aliens could hold off on expanding like in SC it would add a strategic element to the game, but at the cost of FPS gameplay.
Also, how would this sacrifice FPS gameplay? If you're talking about what I think you're talking about then NS already does sacrifice FPS gameplay simply because there are better weapons and more powerful life forms. Think about it. Holding off on expansion can let you have better equipment/life forms in NS already. Expansions in NS for marines would be marked by the presence of a phase gate and some means of defense I guess, those 25 res could be used to drop 2 shotguns and 1 welder in retrospect. For aliens, instead of dropping a hive they can get an extra fade.
Unfortunately, this is not possible in NS1 because both phase gates and hives are necessary for a team to win a game. I would like to see this changed in NS2.
Quickedit: So if marines get a phase gate in a hive location with acceptable defenses, aliens can simply get an extra fade and win the game because marines will be down a couple of resources instead of expanding for the hive. Its just a matter of balance IMO.
Quickedit2: I guess the ability of a team to have mine more resources than another team in NS makes a huge difference. I would like to see this gone along with the whole concept of running around the map to hold E while staring at some poorly animated structure.
I'm saying your analogy doesn't hold because "each rt near the marine start is currently a natural expansion. Making one of those have a res bonus doesn't really add any strategy depth to the game, and in fact decreases it because the strategic depth of NS comes from where to expand, not when to expand like starcraft."
<!--quoteo(post=1674140:date=Mar 24 2008, 05:45 PM:name=Domining)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Domining @ Mar 24 2008, 05:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674140"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, how would this sacrifice FPS gameplay?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"If marines or aliens could hold off on expanding like in SC it would add a strategic element to the game, but at the cost of FPS gameplay."
<!--quoteo(post=1674140:date=Mar 24 2008, 05:45 PM:name=Domining)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Domining @ Mar 24 2008, 05:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674140"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you're talking about what I think you're talking about then NS already does sacrifice FPS gameplay simply because there are better weapons and more powerful life forms.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a line. Being a marine patrolling an empty area because the two teams are building up forces on either side is boring. Getting an armor 1 upgrade sucks a little for the para biting skulk but it doesn't make him useless.
<!--quoteo(post=1674140:date=Mar 24 2008, 05:45 PM:name=Domining)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Domining @ Mar 24 2008, 05:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674140"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Think about it. Holding off on expansion can let you have better equipment/life forms in NS already. Expansions in NS for marines would be marked by the presence of a phase gate and some means of defense I guess, those 25 res could be used to drop 2 shotguns and 1 welder in retrospect. For aliens, instead of dropping a hive they can get an extra fade.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Teching up vs building up is inherent in RTS games, BUT this is not the same as expanding. You use the example of a mineral only nat vs. a gas expo. The gas expo is needed for some SC strats, but not for others so this provides a choice to the player. A node that produces more res is always better, and if you don't take it other team will right away. This is where options have been reduced; you have to go for that node.
<!--quoteo(post=1674140:date=Mar 24 2008, 05:45 PM:name=Domining)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Domining @ Mar 24 2008, 05:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674140"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Quickedit: So if marines get a phase gate in a hive location with acceptable defenses, aliens can simply get an extra fade and win the game because marines will be down a couple of resources instead of expanding for the hive. Its just a matter of balance IMO.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm talking about a high level of play. I would not consider the one or two hive lock down good strats in a competitive game. Regardless an increased flow res node wouldn't change this. It wouldn't add any strategy depth like a natural vs. mineral only expo in SC.
<!--quoteo(post=1674140:date=Mar 24 2008, 05:45 PM:name=Domining)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Domining @ Mar 24 2008, 05:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674140"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unfortunately, this is not possible in NS1 because both phase gates and hives are necessary for a team to win a game. I would like to see this changed in NS2.
Quickedit2: I guess the ability of a team to have mine more resources than another team in NS makes a huge difference. I would like to see this gone along with the whole concept of running around the map to hold E while staring at some poorly animated structure.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure if you mean either of these seriously or not.
Where to expand? You mean cap nodes on the side farthest from the alien hive? What an amazing selection of strategies at your fingertips!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You use the example of a mineral only nat vs. a gas expo.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
nat = natural expansion spot, the spot that a player would naturally select to expand to first every game. There are maybe 2 ladder maps out of the 100 there are with mineral only natural expos.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm talking about a high level of play. I would not consider the one or two hive lock down good strats in a competitive game. Regardless an increased flow res node wouldn't change this. It wouldn't add any strategy depth like a natural vs. mineral only expo in SC.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Acceptable defenses = pg + mines in a deflection strategy.
So you ignore all of the other nodes? Now that's amazing.
<!--quoteo(post=1674161:date=Mar 24 2008, 08:40 PM:name=Domining)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Domining @ Mar 24 2008, 08:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674161"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->nat = natural expansion spot, the spot that a player would naturally select to expand to first every game. There are maybe 2 ladder maps out of the 100 there are with mineral only natural expos.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then why bring it up in the first place? If I wanted to play "turtling marine" I'd play turret defense.
Sorry, I'm a bit of a conservative when it comes to change. I've had several run ins with really really bad changes that look good at first glance but had core flaws.
Also, a friend of mine mentioned something that has more or less changed my position on this.
Basically, give the mappers a much power as you can, and let the players decide if they use those powers correctly.
It's a similar notion to the modding community, sure there will be lots of lame stuff made, but it gives the opportunity for really great and innovative things to some out of it, and in theory and practice, the best rises to the top naturally.
So, I'm changing my vote to YES!
Also, a friend of mine mentioned something that has more or less changed my position on this.
Basically, give the mappers a much power as you can, and let the players decide if they use those powers correctly.
It's a similar notion to the modding community, sure there will be lots of lame stuff made, but it gives the opportunity for really great and innovative things to some out of it, and in theory and practice, the best rises to the top naturally.
So, I'm changing my vote to YES!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Core flaws can be reduced like in any art, with feedback. This is why I make the arguement that more transparency in the development process asking for community feedback on new ideas and even forums such as this one are so powerful in stopping the flaws EARLY and tempering the ideas like a well forged sword.
Your friend is wise. I guess I wasn't making that clear enough and I aplologize. Yes, the prosumers will make and the community's popularity or unpopularity with the product will decide whether it is seen on servers or forgotten to the depths of the abyssal poodle-pit of doom. Of course your friend's explaination may be more clear for the typical reader here.
Glad to hear the change of heart. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> Thanks.