Does jumpcrouch work? You know, from HL1 (and many many other games) where you would need to jump and then quickly hit crouch to get over/ontop of things that were just a little to tall to jump onto regularly. If that doesn't work I can understand some of the confusion.
<!--quoteo(post=1838893:date=Mar 27 2011, 01:49 AM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Mar 27 2011, 01:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838893"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Only thing I could remotely link to major public feedback is the taser. That was pretty funny.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's probably the biggest example. I can also think of: the flamethrower, marine back-walk speed (?), marine building, minimap icon selection, and now, marine repairing. Some of these are just things that needed to be fixed - but the thing is, they are things that were going to be fixed eventually anyway. There are others I've overlooked I'm sure. I'm not saying it <b>is</b>, just that it <b>seems</b>.
Honestly, I can't remember a single change-from-NS1 that has been <b>welcomed</b> by the community at large (or even, not been criticised). Can you?
<!--quoteo(post=1838907:date=Mar 26 2011, 08:39 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Mar 26 2011, 08:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838907"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unbalanced maps with lots of extraneous areas that aren't important for gameplay doesn't make a map more realistic and movie-like. We do try to put a lot of time into the balance and flow of a map, when designing them, as we've learned from NS1 that, while some of the maps looked beautiful, it was the maps with the best gameplay that were played the most, not necessarily the ones with the best visuals.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with everything you said, except maybe with this one. Actually I don't disagree with that either, but here I can see where rein4ce is coming from. There appear to be 2 different approaches to designing a map. First the naive way: Build a map around a visual concept that you have in your mind, build it like it's a real environment, then throw in the players and see how the game plays on it. Some NS1 maps seem to be built that way. And then there's the analytic approach: Build your map with a specific game play concept in mind. That appears to be the way NS2 maps are designed.
Both have advantages and disadvantages. The former makes it more easy to create the feeling of being thrown into a "real" situation (infested space station etc.) where you just have to deal with whatever you're being given and form your strategy around that, which is closer to what "real" space marines might face. But it may turn out that the map simply doesn't work very well game play wise. The latter makes it more easy to achieve balanced as well as challenging game play, but there's the danger of creating the feeling of being thrown into an arena instead of an actual battle field, with everything being predetermined and you only going through the motions, which might destroy the illusion.
Most people will probably prefer maps that are well balanced and thought out over those who just "have the right atmosphere", but some might not. The holy grail of course being the map that does both perfectly right.
@NurEinMensch, WOW, that was absolutely spot on. I'd never express it better myself. I do understand that well balanced maps are certainly more popular and fun to play then those created with just looks in mind. But what about TF2's 2fort - one of the most popular map ever? Balanced? no doubt. Fun to play? probably at first. Arena like? yes. For all I know it could be untextured aswell and people wouldn't even notice - just like Quake-3 levels - who cares about their look and feel if they are totally unbelievable arenas.
@player - when I come to think about it, more than pure FOV, what counts is the aspect ratio - as you are saying. If for 4:3 90-degrees was ok, then for nowaday's widescreen monitors something along the 100-110 would cut it I believe. I only wonder how unnatural that would look...
I played a little NS2 yesterday to just nail down the collision thing. The jump-and-crouch seems awkward and I'm still not sure wether it works or not. You indeed can jump on some crates and some railings, but it is hard to distinguish on which you are allowed to. There are for example some non-colliding props (which i find very irritating like that bent metal plate in the Tram's hiveroom).
But as for general look and feel it still early to talk about, like Cory said. If ns_tram is supposed to be one of the smaller maps then we can hope for larger environments with lots of interactivity in them (remember that cave-like level from some trailer? - looked very refreshing)
<!--quoteo(post=1838970:date=Mar 27 2011, 05:12 PM:name=rein4ce)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rein4ce @ Mar 27 2011, 05:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838970"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->@player - when I come to think about it, more than pure FOV, what counts is the aspect ratio - as you are saying. If for 4:3 90-degrees was ok, then for nowaday's widescreen monitors something along the 100-110 would cut it I believe. I only wonder how unnatural that would look...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is quite right, the dimensions of the plane onto which you are projecting the image is very much important for how it will look. 90 degrees for a 4:3 was pretty high, and therefor felt nice and fast. To achieve similarly on a widescreen (16:10, 16:9), you would have to go up to between 105-110 certainly, as least that's what I've set the FOV to be.
I've not released the ovrmind version that will do this, but you can go ahead and start a listen-server, type "dev 1" in the console, followed by "setfov 110", to accomplish the same. Using this the FOV will be continuesly reset though, so you'll have to redo it each time you change class (marine\commander\skulk et cetera).
Will the NS2 maps they're working on be as large as the NS1 maps were. Plus will there be more vents? I adore vents to an unfathomable and almost unhealthy degree.
<!--quoteo(post=1838974:date=Mar 27 2011, 05:42 PM:name=Tig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tig @ Mar 27 2011, 05:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838974"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->nobody has criticized the new wall walking, that sh.t is tight.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree, I've never seen a method of wall walking so effective and smooth since the days of AVP2. Kudos to the devs.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1838925:date=Mar 26 2011, 02:26 PM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Mar 26 2011, 02:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838925"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's been inverted. Instead of pulling up your feet, it moves your torso down. That makes it pretty useless at this point.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've noticed that too. Jump height also seems to be pretty low. I can't seem to jump over most of the rails in tram.
<!--quoteo(post=1838974:date=Mar 28 2011, 12:42 AM:name=Tig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tig @ Mar 28 2011, 12:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838974"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->nobody has criticized the new wall walking, that sh.t is tight.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've seen many criticise it. In fact, case in point, they've now got a console command to disable it. Not a bad thing, but still.
now that they have a console command, perhaps we might see avp wall walking?
though i seem to remember it being a boolean flag, not an int.
the difference (between the maps) is that ns1 maps were abstract due to engine limitations. your mind fills in the blanks. ns2 is much more detailed and your mind doesn't do as good a job of filling in the blanks
<!--quoteo(post=1838956:date=Mar 27 2011, 12:11 PM:name=NurEinMensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NurEinMensch @ Mar 27 2011, 12:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838956"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There appear to be 2 different approaches to designing a map. Build a map around a visual concept that you have in your mind, build it like it's a real environment, then throw in the players and see how the game plays on it. Some NS1 maps seem to be built that way. And then there's the analytic approach: Build your map with a specific game play concept in mind. That appears to be the way NS2 maps are designed.
Both have advantages and disadvantages. The former makes it more easy to create the feeling of being thrown into a "real" situation (infested space station etc.) where you just have to deal with whatever you're being given and form your strategy around that, which is closer to what "real" space marines might face. The latter makes it more easy to achieve balanced as well as challenging game play, but there's the danger of creating the feeling of being thrown into an arena instead of an actual battle field, with everything being predetermined and you only going through the motions, which might destroy the illusion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes and no. I wouldn't say those 2 ways of creating a map, of either designing a map to be well balanced and to work well for gameplay or creating a map that feels more like a real environment, are mutually exclusive. And in fact we've tried to combine those approaches in the NS2 maps as much as we can. For each of the official maps we first approached the design from a high level, simultaneously coming up with a distinct visual theme fore each of them at the same time that we were working out the top down layout and deciding how many techpoints they each would have.
Tram is one part of the massive refining/mining facility, and it is focused around the packing, storing, and shipping of the valuable ore that is being mined and refined from the planet. The Docking map that is being worked on is the part of the facility where the workers arrive at, check in, and also where the personnel quarters and leisure areas are located. That has some more "real" feeling areas, like a cafeteria with tables and chairs and a food counter, a locker room, an airport style terminal, and more. So, those themes for each area of the maps were first developed from a visual side, with concept art. Those areas were dropped into the layout in a way that they would make the most sense for a real functioning facility, but that also works for the gameplay flow.
It's certainly a difficult balancing act between art and design, the more "real" you make an area feel. Its all well and good to make a small tight locker room with rows and rows of lockers. But can players move easily through that? Are there enough entrances and exits out of it? Is it a resource point or a techpoint? The addition of techpoint models in NS2 has made for some difficult room design at times. Its one thing to have a cafeteria area, but does it still work when a large industrial looking glowing techpoint prop is dropped in the middle of it? Do all the tables need to be moved out of the middle of the room to leave room for all the large marine structures to be built?
While I understand the points being made, I disagree that the areas in NS2 maps feel like abstract and undefined Quake 3 style arenas. But there is something to the approach you need to take making a multiplayer game versus a singleplayer game. A singleplayer game like Dead Space can have a room that is filled with chairs and tables and computers. You move through areas that are claustrophobic bathrooms and bedrooms, and every area is at a very human scale, because they only need to worry about one player moving through, with maybe a few creatures jumping out once in a while. Not to mention that much of the clutter from all the props is there to keep you moving along a defined narrow path. Most multiplayer games tend to have much larger and more open rooms, or they take place outside in large open landscape environments. Once you need to accommodate for 20 or 30 players running around in one area shooting at each other, the design is going to move away from a more realistic approach (unless its an outdoors map) because real world spaces aren't created for that. <!--quoteo(post=1838984:date=Mar 27 2011, 06:40 PM:name=Archaic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Archaic @ Mar 27 2011, 06:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838984"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the difference (between the maps) is that ns1 maps were abstract due to engine limitations. your mind fills in the blanks. ns2 is much more detailed and your mind doesn't do as good a job of filling in the blanks<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is an excellent point. Going back and looking at NS1 maps you'd be surprised at how little detail was used to convey a data center or a cafeteria. The name on the map said cafeteria, and there was a table made out of brushwork sitting in the middle of a room, and you just bought it as a cafeteria. While now we have the ability to create much more complicated scenes, its sort of a double edged sword. As soon as you are able to add the prop detail to an area to define it as a cafeteria you realize how many more props and unique textures you still need to make it REALLY feel like a cafeteria.
I think one thing is that these maps are more flat as NS1 maps had more elevators, stairs, ladders, and platforms which I think made trans-versing the maps more interesting.
<!--quoteo(post=1838778:date=Mar 25 2011, 05:25 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 25 2011, 05:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838778"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Main difference between NS1 and NS2 maps I think is half a decade of nostalgia.
I played NS1 when I was comparatively new to gaming, and everything was magical and amazing and mysterious.
I'm playing NS2 at the end of a games development degree. So it isn't any of those, still looks very nice though, the quality of the art and the general feel of the renderer is definitely enjoyable.
Given the mainstreaming of many aspects of game development over the past decade, with gamers being far more aware of how games are built and the different options available to developers, and much more emphasis placed on the technical side of games, I imagine this is the case for most people to a degree, the fact that most people probably played NS1 when they were 15 (and subsequently pretty dumb) and those same people are now bitter 20somethings having to deal with the unpleasantness of real life and probably finding that games simply aren't being made for them any more, but being unwilling or unable to recognise this and wondering why all games nowadays suck and so on, that also doesn't help NS2 very much when compared to NS1.
TLDR, all the NS1 people are miserable old buggers now and so NS2 doesn't seem as good as the good old days.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You sure are a depressing person
Thank you for that explanation Cory. I think everything you said makes sense, and personally I believe NS2 is really hitting the spot atmosphere wise. What I wanted to do was expand a certain point of view, that I think is legit, without implying that NS2 was making some grave mistakes there. The example of Quake 3 arenas was given as an extreme example I believe. At least to me NS2 maps look completely different. At least as far as I can tell. Of all the "official" maps I have only seen tram so far.
And yes, it's funny how more detailed maps can actually create the impression of being less detailed. Perception is a funny animal.
Two things I personally think are a must to be added to NS2.
One working elevators.
Nothing beats going down an elevator not knowing whats at the bottom waiting for you. Adds a great level of realism hearing the elevators start then preparing for whats coming up or down.
Few issues I can see at this point with developing and introducing elevators to the game.
-Creating waypoints that can support ground and air traversing units moving with the elevator and not going through it. If it the elevator was at the bottom drifters and macs could go up freely, but when at the top realistically they shouldn't be able to pass through.
-Placement off buildings within the elevator pad/shaft shouldn't be allowed as it would block the elevator and create overlapping models, plus gameplay issues.
-Dynamic infestation could shut down the elevator if it spread through the shaft or maybe just slow it down so it doesn't move as fast. Therefor marines have to clear it as the go down. Maybe a less accessible maintenance shaft could allow marines to clear it, but with being more open to attack and obviously not being able to get up quickly to safety.
Two vents that can be sealed off.
Whether with a welder or maybe some correlation between the power being on or off allowing them to be open or not.
This allowing a room to be balanced for both teams depend on their level of control.
I know doors are being made to sealed and opened, but ns1 had vents that could be welded shut.
There's a very different choice of colour palette in NS2. NS1 had a plenty of grey, metallic textures but it also had a fair bunch of colourful textures that were very popular(e.g. the wall lab set), NS2 is mostly gray with a bit of brown(so far).
Comments
That's probably the biggest example.
I can also think of: the flamethrower, marine back-walk speed (?), marine building, minimap icon selection, and now, marine repairing. Some of these are just things that needed to be fixed - but the thing is, they are things that were going to be fixed eventually anyway. There are others I've overlooked I'm sure.
I'm not saying it <b>is</b>, just that it <b>seems</b>.
Honestly, I can't remember a single change-from-NS1 that has been <b>welcomed</b> by the community at large (or even, not been criticised). Can you?
I agree with everything you said, except maybe with this one. Actually I don't disagree with that either, but here I can see where rein4ce is coming from. There appear to be 2 different approaches to designing a map. First the naive way: Build a map around a visual concept that you have in your mind, build it like it's a real environment, then throw in the players and see how the game plays on it. Some NS1 maps seem to be built that way. And then there's the analytic approach: Build your map with a specific game play concept in mind. That appears to be the way NS2 maps are designed.
Both have advantages and disadvantages. The former makes it more easy to create the feeling of being thrown into a "real" situation (infested space station etc.) where you just have to deal with whatever you're being given and form your strategy around that, which is closer to what "real" space marines might face. But it may turn out that the map simply doesn't work very well game play wise. The latter makes it more easy to achieve balanced as well as challenging game play, but there's the danger of creating the feeling of being thrown into an arena instead of an actual battle field, with everything being predetermined and you only going through the motions, which might destroy the illusion.
Most people will probably prefer maps that are well balanced and thought out over those who just "have the right atmosphere", but some might not. The holy grail of course being the map that does both perfectly right.
@player - when I come to think about it, more than pure FOV, what counts is the aspect ratio - as you are saying. If for 4:3 90-degrees was ok, then for nowaday's widescreen monitors something along the 100-110 would cut it I believe. I only wonder how unnatural that would look...
I played a little NS2 yesterday to just nail down the collision thing. The jump-and-crouch seems awkward and I'm still not sure wether it works or not. You indeed can jump on some crates and some railings, but it is hard to distinguish on which you are allowed to. There are for example some non-colliding props (which i find very irritating like that bent metal plate in the Tram's hiveroom).
But as for general look and feel it still early to talk about, like Cory said. If ns_tram is supposed to be one of the smaller maps then we can hope for larger environments with lots of interactivity in them (remember that cave-like level from some trailer? - looked very refreshing)
That is quite right, the dimensions of the plane onto which you are projecting the image is very much important for how it will look. 90 degrees for a 4:3 was pretty high, and therefor felt nice and fast. To achieve similarly on a widescreen (16:10, 16:9), you would have to go up to between 105-110 certainly, as least that's what I've set the FOV to be.
I've not released the ovrmind version that will do this, but you can go ahead and start a listen-server, type "dev 1" in the console, followed by "setfov 110", to accomplish the same. Using this the FOV will be continuesly reset though, so you'll have to redo it each time you change class (marine\commander\skulk et cetera).
Will the NS2 maps they're working on be as large as the NS1 maps were.
Plus will there be more vents?
I adore vents to an unfathomable and almost unhealthy degree.
<!--quoteo(post=1838974:date=Mar 27 2011, 05:42 PM:name=Tig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tig @ Mar 27 2011, 05:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838974"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->nobody has criticized the new wall walking, that sh.t is tight.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, I've never seen a method of wall walking so effective and smooth since the days of AVP2.
Kudos to the devs.
I've noticed that too. Jump height also seems to be pretty low. I can't seem to jump over most of the rails in tram.
I've seen many criticise it.
In fact, case in point, they've now got a console command to disable it. Not a bad thing, but still.
though i seem to remember it being a boolean flag, not an int.
the difference (between the maps) is that ns1 maps were abstract due to engine limitations. your mind fills in the blanks. ns2 is much more detailed and your mind doesn't do as good a job of filling in the blanks
Both have advantages and disadvantages. The former makes it more easy to create the feeling of being thrown into a "real" situation (infested space station etc.) where you just have to deal with whatever you're being given and form your strategy around that, which is closer to what "real" space marines might face. The latter makes it more easy to achieve balanced as well as challenging game play, but there's the danger of creating the feeling of being thrown into an arena instead of an actual battle field, with everything being predetermined and you only going through the motions, which might destroy the illusion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes and no. I wouldn't say those 2 ways of creating a map, of either designing a map to be well balanced and to work well for gameplay or creating a map that feels more like a real environment, are mutually exclusive. And in fact we've tried to combine those approaches in the NS2 maps as much as we can. For each of the official maps we first approached the design from a high level, simultaneously coming up with a distinct visual theme fore each of them at the same time that we were working out the top down layout and deciding how many techpoints they each would have.
Tram is one part of the massive refining/mining facility, and it is focused around the packing, storing, and shipping of the valuable ore that is being mined and refined from the planet. The Docking map that is being worked on is the part of the facility where the workers arrive at, check in, and also where the personnel quarters and leisure areas are located. That has some more "real" feeling areas, like a cafeteria with tables and chairs and a food counter, a locker room, an airport style terminal, and more. So, those themes for each area of the maps were first developed from a visual side, with concept art. Those areas were dropped into the layout in a way that they would make the most sense for a real functioning facility, but that also works for the gameplay flow.
It's certainly a difficult balancing act between art and design, the more "real" you make an area feel. Its all well and good to make a small tight locker room with rows and rows of lockers. But can players move easily through that? Are there enough entrances and exits out of it? Is it a resource point or a techpoint? The addition of techpoint models in NS2 has made for some difficult room design at times. Its one thing to have a cafeteria area, but does it still work when a large industrial looking glowing techpoint prop is dropped in the middle of it? Do all the tables need to be moved out of the middle of the room to leave room for all the large marine structures to be built?
While I understand the points being made, I disagree that the areas in NS2 maps feel like abstract and undefined Quake 3 style arenas. But there is something to the approach you need to take making a multiplayer game versus a singleplayer game. A singleplayer game like Dead Space can have a room that is filled with chairs and tables and computers. You move through areas that are claustrophobic bathrooms and bedrooms, and every area is at a very human scale, because they only need to worry about one player moving through, with maybe a few creatures jumping out once in a while. Not to mention that much of the clutter from all the props is there to keep you moving along a defined narrow path. Most multiplayer games tend to have much larger and more open rooms, or they take place outside in large open landscape environments. Once you need to accommodate for 20 or 30 players running around in one area shooting at each other, the design is going to move away from a more realistic approach (unless its an outdoors map) because real world spaces aren't created for that.
<!--quoteo(post=1838984:date=Mar 27 2011, 06:40 PM:name=Archaic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Archaic @ Mar 27 2011, 06:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838984"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the difference (between the maps) is that ns1 maps were abstract due to engine limitations. your mind fills in the blanks. ns2 is much more detailed and your mind doesn't do as good a job of filling in the blanks<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is an excellent point. Going back and looking at NS1 maps you'd be surprised at how little detail was used to convey a data center or a cafeteria. The name on the map said cafeteria, and there was a table made out of brushwork sitting in the middle of a room, and you just bought it as a cafeteria. While now we have the ability to create much more complicated scenes, its sort of a double edged sword. As soon as you are able to add the prop detail to an area to define it as a cafeteria you realize how many more props and unique textures you still need to make it REALLY feel like a cafeteria.
--Cory
I played NS1 when I was comparatively new to gaming, and everything was magical and amazing and mysterious.
I'm playing NS2 at the end of a games development degree. So it isn't any of those, still looks very nice though, the quality of the art and the general feel of the renderer is definitely enjoyable.
Given the mainstreaming of many aspects of game development over the past decade, with gamers being far more aware of how games are built and the different options available to developers, and much more emphasis placed on the technical side of games, I imagine this is the case for most people to a degree, the fact that most people probably played NS1 when they were 15 (and subsequently pretty dumb) and those same people are now bitter 20somethings having to deal with the unpleasantness of real life and probably finding that games simply aren't being made for them any more, but being unwilling or unable to recognise this and wondering why all games nowadays suck and so on, that also doesn't help NS2 very much when compared to NS1.
TLDR, all the NS1 people are miserable old buggers now and so NS2 doesn't seem as good as the good old days.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You sure are a depressing person
And yes, it's funny how more detailed maps can actually create the impression of being less detailed. Perception is a funny animal.
Two things I personally think are a must to be added to NS2.
One working elevators.
Nothing beats going down an elevator not knowing
whats at the bottom waiting for you. Adds a great level of realism hearing the
elevators start then preparing for whats coming up or down.
Few issues I can see at this point with developing and introducing elevators to the game.
-Creating waypoints that can support ground and air traversing units moving with the
elevator and not going through it. If it the elevator was at the bottom drifters and macs
could go up freely, but when at the top realistically they shouldn't be able to pass through.
-Placement off buildings within the elevator pad/shaft shouldn't be allowed as it would block
the elevator and create overlapping models, plus gameplay issues.
-Dynamic infestation could shut down the elevator if it spread through the shaft or maybe
just slow it down so it doesn't move as fast. Therefor marines have to clear it as the go down.
Maybe a less accessible maintenance shaft could allow marines to clear it, but with being
more open to attack and obviously not being able to get up quickly to safety.
Two vents that can be sealed off.
Whether with a welder or maybe some correlation between the power being on or off
allowing them to be open or not.
This allowing a room to be balanced for both teams depend on their level of control.
I know doors are being made to sealed and opened, but ns1 had vents that could be welded shut.