Adding a meta game element to NS2
Fallen Greatly
Join Date: 2011-01-12 Member: 77263Members, Reinforced - Shadow
Join Date: 2011-01-12 Member: 77263Members, Reinforced - Shadow
<div class="IPBDescription">an idea for late beta/post release inclusion</div>In thinking of ways to make the outcome of game rounds more interesting and have a greater impact on ongoing play, I have come to the conclusion that the addition of an <b>optional</b> sever side meta game warrants special consideration. Given the prominence of RTS gameplay features in NS2, any such meta game would ideally share at least some similarities or connections to that aspect of the game.
One idea that I have been considering consists of a regional or planetary over-map that incorporates most if not all of the official maps available both now and in future game expansions. This over-map, which is partially inspired by risk and the Galactic Conquest mode of the Star Wars Battlefront series, would serve a number of gameplay functions. First, the map would tally and outline the controlled territories of both the alien and human factions. On completion of a round, the victorious team would assume control of the conquered location and would then be allowed to vote on the next region to attack. Play would continue until all territories fell under the control of a single team thereby winning the meta game. Additional server controlled features would be made available to expand upon and deepen the options present in the meta game. For example, strategic territorial ownership rewards could be assigned to the different maps making control of each map have a distinct impact on each continuing round of play. Another ideal inclusion would be the ability to incorporate nonofficial custom maps into the meta game over-map as well as customization options for the various territorial rewards.
From the nature of this post, it should be apparent that this is a not yet fully matured concept. There are many options that need to be weighed when considering implementing something like this into the overall structure of the game. I understand that the UWE devs lack much of the time and resources that would be needed to implement such a decidedly optional gameplay feature. Perhaps this is something that would be best left for a team of modders to construct. Either way, I just wanted to get the idea out there and see how it would be perceived by my fellow fans of NS2. All feedback is welcome, but please try to keep it as constructive as possible. Thanks for reading.--F.G.
One idea that I have been considering consists of a regional or planetary over-map that incorporates most if not all of the official maps available both now and in future game expansions. This over-map, which is partially inspired by risk and the Galactic Conquest mode of the Star Wars Battlefront series, would serve a number of gameplay functions. First, the map would tally and outline the controlled territories of both the alien and human factions. On completion of a round, the victorious team would assume control of the conquered location and would then be allowed to vote on the next region to attack. Play would continue until all territories fell under the control of a single team thereby winning the meta game. Additional server controlled features would be made available to expand upon and deepen the options present in the meta game. For example, strategic territorial ownership rewards could be assigned to the different maps making control of each map have a distinct impact on each continuing round of play. Another ideal inclusion would be the ability to incorporate nonofficial custom maps into the meta game over-map as well as customization options for the various territorial rewards.
From the nature of this post, it should be apparent that this is a not yet fully matured concept. There are many options that need to be weighed when considering implementing something like this into the overall structure of the game. I understand that the UWE devs lack much of the time and resources that would be needed to implement such a decidedly optional gameplay feature. Perhaps this is something that would be best left for a team of modders to construct. Either way, I just wanted to get the idea out there and see how it would be perceived by my fellow fans of NS2. All feedback is welcome, but please try to keep it as constructive as possible. Thanks for reading.--F.G.
Comments
Edit: I'm thinking it could be done relatively easily as a third-party mod, though. Once the mapchange and votemap infrastructure are in place.
Also because, don't quote me on this, but only 4 maps are going to be officially supported on release (for the Refinery artset, there'll probably be more maps added post-release for Refinery, and more artsets added with their own accompanying maps). So you'd need those extra community-made maps to make the meta-game worthwhile.
The best thing about this idea is that it would change the game immensely, and yet not change it at all.
This is a lot like what CCP is planning to do with EVE-Online.
They are going to make a FPS game that will decide battles on planets in the MMO. Corporations and the economy will be linked in both games. Pretty cool stuff.
<img src="http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/3382/ns2metamapidea.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Add all the shiny graphics you like, for example: bright power and flags for the TSA; and creepy infestation for the kharaa.
You could possibly have more than one area being contested, but that would make things more complicated and require many more players, I think.
FuzionMonkey: That sounds cool, I might have to check it out. Also looking forward to PlanetSide Next, although that's more of a real-time mmofps rather than 'turn-based' which is what this effectively is.
It sounds pretty crazy, I guess there will be a commander so its going to have a bit of the RTS element. Wow, a MMO/FPS/RTS. Thats crazy.
I guess the thing that makes a game an RTS though, is resources, researches and production.
Harimau, I think you hit the nail on the head with that graphic. That is a pretty accurate concept of what I am thinking. Inevitably there would need to a at least one contested map at the start of the meta game. Another Risk inspired feature that I was thinking could be added to the meta game would be unoccupied territories that need to be claimed by either of the two teams at the cost of forfeiting their attacking turn. You are right about it being a fairly easy mod. At very least the map and voting features should not be too difficult to implement. The only tricky issue might be implementing a territorial reward system. That may require some addition code work on UWE's part. Of course, I am no programming expert so I really cannot say for sure.
FunzionMonkey, thanks for reminding me about Dust 514. I did not know that so similar a feature was planned for it as well. That only adds to my anticipation for the game.
<img src="http://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/0/0e/Territorial_Control_Map_TC_Hydro.JPG" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Would be interesting, but I can see it being good or bad depending on the implementation.
But yeah, as I think about this idea in more detail, it occurs to me that the inclusion of the over-map could have a redeeming impact on what would otherwise be poorly-balanced maps. Should a map heavily favor the alien or marine team, sever ops. could categorize them as stronghold/base maps. This would provide a nice climax to the meta game. A team that has conquered the rest of the over-map, which should now possess many territorial rewards, then goes in for the kill on the opposing teams base map. Would make for an interesting fight, I think.
One element that Shattered Galaxy had that could translate well into an NS2-based game would be that the map you're attacking *from* determines your starting point on the map you're hitting.
To use Harimaru's mockup, if aliens attacked Tram from Mineshaft, they might have their hive at location 1, but if they attacked it from Rockdown, it would start at location 2. It gives an extra layer of strategic value to each individual map. (however, I have no idea how this would affect map balance with marine start potentially moving all over)
I wonder how the ideas of the Ready Room and persistent teams, and the issues of joining and leaving players should affect how the game plays, though.
For example: One special ready room for the entire meta-map, and people can't switch teams (they may join the individual map's ready room, or spectate, but the "random" and "other team" options will be disabled) unless they reconnect; so effectively you have persistent teams. Possibly even persistent scores.
These could of course also be server-side options.
As for newcomers and team-switchers, that again should probably be left up to the server admins to decide. I personally would opt for a simple rule set such as: any player who switches teams must play on their new team for at least the last 5 minutes of the round before they acquire voting rights in the over-map. I personally feel that this would be a fairly sound anti-griefing measure. Additionally, all newcomers to the server would be bared from voting for at least 10 minutes. This would heavily discourage people from disconnecting and then reconnecting for similar griefing purposes.
Regarding the use of resources as a territorial reward, I am largely in agreement with you, ScardyBob. Additional resources would be relatively uncomplicated to implement in game in addition to being easy for new players to understand. Of course, I personally value a more strategic reward system and as such have though of other possible rewards for holding different territories. One thing I can see being done with the rewards system is having as many as three different types of rewards common to all of the territories in the over-map.
The first reward variety is rather simple: it is a shared reward that applies to both teams. An perfect example of this would, in fact, be a small amount of additional starting resources. The second type of reward I am envisioning is a divergent reward. This would consist of a free specified piece of the each team's tech tree. For example, holding mineshaft might grant the marine team sentries at start with the need to research them. Conversely, it might give the aliens access to class upgrades like running leap for the skulk. This system allows for a map to hold slightly greater value to one team than the other. It still encourages the less rewarded team to work hard to defend each map or risk having to deal with a more powerful enemy in future rounds. The third and final reward type that I am considering would be quite different from the others. This reward/bonus would only be in effect for the specific map being fought presently over. Importantly, the bonus would only be granted to what ever team happens to be defending the map. The bonus could vary considerably depending on whether the map held more strategic value to one side or the other. Strongholds/bases for example, may grant the defending team tier 2 or 3 abilities at the start of the round. Conversely, a regular contested map's defensive bonus might simply be a slight boost in starting resources.
Of course, the specific of the rewards would be best left under the control of server admins. I merely use these choices to illustrate a framework of the what I would personally implement if I had the proper resources and know-how to get the job done.
Giving the winning team some form of bonus will help end each complete playthrough of the metagame much faster, too. (similar to how TF2 gives longer respawn times to defending teams as they get to their final capture points) Resources is a good starting reward, though various "morale" boosts or additional tech might be in order.
And hey, controlling various maps could give access to various tech as well. Don't know how it would balance, but maybe a team has access to weapons/armor 1 and 2, but controlling map X allows weapons 3, or controlling map Y allows armor 3. It would have to be carefully designed to keep the game balanced.
Yes, and that is the problem. When I played one hour with the same team and there're 3 maps left or so, I want to finish the game. It would be a real teamfeeling, like "next map we'll get 'em" and I and maybe 50 percent of the players would want to win the metagame. When 7 people leave or so, this all is ###### up. Teams are smaller and unequal in the middle of a round. Leavers are ok in a one-map-game; but when the game is over 3 hours and after 2 they ###### it up, it is not so cool. Know what I mean?
That's not an issue with the game, nor something it can or needs to address.
People may leave <b>and join</b> at will. Whether they can change teams is up for debate.
But I would have teams persistent for the connected session. If you want to change team, then reconnect to the metagame server. This can of course be a server-side option. Server operators could also choose the other two options, the extremes: Force teams for the duration of a metagame, regardless of disconnects; or allow team changes without restriction.
Alternatively, you could have your stats persistent for however long you remain on the same team, for the duration of the metagame, regardless of disconnects. Change team and your persistent stats resets.
Honestly, the only way to address your concern is to have very small metagame maps and very short rounds; but that somewhat defeats the purpose, ne?
Combat version of metagame incoming XD
I play the rounds, I don't direct the strategy section. I like strategic games like that but only if I'm actually in charge. Otherwise it doesn't make any difference. You could get the same results with a random map selector. In fact you'd get better results because then you can play all the maps. With the layout suggested then tram is going to be played way more than any other map, and I'm going to get really sick of it.
Adding weird bonuses for metagame control is kinda bleh, all it does whenever I've seen it is make the round really unbalanced.
"Honestly, the only way to address your concern is to have very small metagame maps and very short rounds; but that somewhat defeats the purpose, ne? "
Yes, exactly. Maybe our logic works different. That's what I mean.
The big version would cause the whole game to be ruined over and over again. And the small one does not make sense.
Whp plays NS just to kill some stuff and leave in the middle of the round? Well, not me. What sense does the metagame make, when no one cares for the end of it?
First, I want to reiterate my belief that servers should have the ultimate say when it comes to the question of how to address these issues. What is fun and makes sense for some people will inevitably not be the same for everyone. That said, I would personally allow for team-switching. However rare the circumstances may be, there will be times when a large gap emerges in the size of the two teams. I much prefer optional team-switching over mandatory auto-balancing mechanics. To prevent abuse of the system, a team-switcher would temporarily lose all inter-round voting rights in the meta unless they had played on their new team for a certain amount of time before the round ends. This is just how I would personally attempt to handle the situation. Other people may have better ideas or personal preferences that they would be free to implement.
As for what Chris0132 said, I think you may be misunderstanding some of what I am trying to say. All legitimate members of the team would have a say in the strategic choices of the meta game. The comm is not the only one who gets to choose which map to attack next. It is my personal belief that it is only fair if the whole team has a part to play in the meta experience. Also, the picture you reference is just a proof of concept, not a direct representation of what the real over-maps would look like. Also, I am not dictating that territories be captured in a linear order. Again allowing for sever control over implementation, I favor a system where any territory in the over-map can be a legitimate target at any time, possibly even the teams' stronghold/base territories. One possibility inspired by the standard game-play of NS2 would be that capturing a stronghold would signal an immediate meta victory for the attaching team. However, this would be a rather difficult challenge assuming that a team launched their attack too early in the meta. Only by acquiring an ample supply of territorial rewards would a team be truly prepared to go against the opposing team's base. For more clarification on this, place look to my earlier post concerning three possible types of territorial rewards/bonuses for the meta.
I really don't think it would work. If you give one side an advantage on some maps because it's a stronghold or something that's just going to result in repeated futile attempts to attack it.
The point of a metagame is to make the metagame fun. In empire total war the majority of the game is the metagame, it's managing cities and strategic disposition of your forces, the realtime battles are really just there for fun. You can and I often do simply autoresolve most of them. If, however, total war was a competitive game, it would suck. Other players would attack with overwhelming forces and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it, or they would take advantage of superior starting positions and stonewall you. On the other hand if you just make the metagame a fancy map selector, what's the point? Just randomise maps based on what hasn't been played in a while, keep each game balanced and different from the last.
Since Fallen, Harimaru and I don't need or really want your approval, I'm gonna ignore you two and get back to discussing ways to make it work. Unless, of course, you have something new to say.
Let's see... another option is to make the metagame large enough that it actually involves multiple "matches" going on at the same time. If enough players were regularly involved, the metagame would move much quicker, or at least be more dynamic. To solve team switching as well as deadlocked metagames, have the metagame servers flag each player and force them to stick to one team that they choose. However, make the metagame reset on a regluar basis - once every couple days, or once a week. This lets people change teams eventually while keeping teams somewhat static - also allows for some form of team balancing.
As for people coming and going, I don't see a problem. People come and go in a game of NS1 or NS2 all the time, and that game usually just keeps on chugging. It might change direction if a really good player comes or leaves, but it rarely becomes unplayable (i.e. a whole team leaves).
Deleted - Deadzone explained it better and much simpler ^^
I played Warhammer Fantasy for a little while, but I've heard of the events you're talking about. Basically you have several battles going on between several sets of players. If faction X completes an objective in one battle, the other members of that faction on other battles get some sort of bonus or reinforcement.
This sort of metagame is very similar to that, indeed. Just less work to be done by the players since the servers handle keeping track of the outcomes/bonuses.