<!--quoteo(post=2060895:date=Jan 15 2013, 06:21 PM:name=d0ped0g)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (d0ped0g @ Jan 15 2013, 06:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2060895"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is anybody actually saying this? Seems like you're just jumping to conclusions and putting words in his mouth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps not explicitly, but the OP is certainly worded in a fashion that will (quite reasonably) make people think it is an excuse to bash the game rather than an actual legitimate complaint.
Personally, from a level design perspective, I don't see any of the issues the OP points out as actually being issues. Stating that certain kinds of maps are just 'impossible' because of a minor mechanical hurdle is simply incorrect. Any level designer worth his salt can work around restrictions like those, or even turn them into level mechanics. 'Can't make elevators' is not 'NS2 maps are severely limited and NS1 was better'. It's 'NS2 level designers need to figure out how to not rely on elevators' which is perfectly feasible, and even advantageous in terms of encouraging solid level flow.
<!--quoteo(post=2060899:date=Jan 15 2013, 01:45 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 15 2013, 01:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2060899"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Perhaps not explicitly, but the OP is certainly worded in a fashion that will (quite reasonably) make people think it is an excuse to bash the game rather than an actual legitimate complaint.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Looking at the topic's tittle and the condescendant tone of following posts, I would not disagree on your understatement.
<!--quoteo(post=2059990:date=Jan 13 2013, 03:52 AM:name=piratedave)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (piratedave @ Jan 13 2013, 03:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2059990"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->+1 for the op
but you forgot to mention that UWE themselves have tried to limit mappers by creating rules on how those maps should be created (if they are ever to be accepted as official that is) This means that there will be no Maze of corridors anymore on official maps and no more interesting layouts, instead we have this : tech room - small coridor - rt room - small coridor - tech room ... rince repeat. This is why all the maps seem to have a wagon wheel design<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I had never noticed that, and now that I think about it, youre right, the maps are so bland design wise...
<!--quoteo(post=2060004:date=Jan 13 2013, 06:09 AM:name=Namm)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Namm @ Jan 13 2013, 06:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2060004"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If the commander could zoom and rotate a bit, placing Cysts (and other structures) on walls shouldn't be a problem and it would be possible to have vertical Cyst chains. It's a 3D engine afterall, why not make the RTS part fully 3D (except for the roofs, which have to be transparent). All the aspects are already in the game, they'll just have to figure out how to make zoom/rotate reasonably glitch free.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
XCOM Enemy Unknown does a great job at drop down multi level gameplay, they should try to do the same thing.
<!--quoteo(post=2060924:date=Jan 15 2013, 12:47 PM:name=Wake)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wake @ Jan 15 2013, 12:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2060924"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Looking at the topic's tittle and the condescendant tone of following posts, I would not disagree on your understatement.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Condescending tone of everyone else? I think the only people really being condescending are the people agreeing that it's impossible to make good maps the way things are. You want some proof? Read the first line of the first post in this topic it goes like this:
"OK I'm keeping this as short as possible to keep it "TL DR" tards friendly."
Is calling people 'tards' really a great way to open a discussion about your opinion?
<!--quoteo(post=2060946:date=Jan 15 2013, 01:29 PM:name=DamDSx)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DamDSx @ Jan 15 2013, 01:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2060946"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I had never noticed that, and now that I think about it, youre right, the maps are so bland design wise...
XCOM Enemy Unknown does a great job at drop down multi level gameplay, they should try to do the same thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't find any of the maps to be really bland design wise, look at docking. The amount of work that went into designing the outside area that the players see through the windows is very well detailed considering most of it is never seen. By it's very nature the game requires a fairly good bit of symmetry to maintain balance. If you look at maps in Starcraft, they're basically the same map divided into sections. You can fold those maps in half and they're almost exactly the same, not quite the truth with NS2 maps. If you're going to call them bland at least show that you can do something better is all I'm going to say.
XCOM EU does NOT have a great system for multilevel game play. I can't tell you how many times I got pissed because I moved guys somewhere I didn't want to cause of how it deals with multiple levels. I especially hated how a lot of times you can't see into an area because it doesn't realize you're trying to look under something so it'll keep snapping your cursor to the roof.
<!--quoteo(post=2060886:date=Jan 15 2013, 06:55 PM:name=hozz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hozz @ Jan 15 2013, 06:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2060886"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Never played NS1, but I don't understand these complaints. The OP gives a list of them, but they make nearly no sense. Can you elaborate?
..
Any other *actual* fundamental differences?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cysts and power node mainly. Cysts require that you have a relatively flat path from every alien starting hive to every natural RT, which make a lot of ground on most maps. NS1 maps could use more complex geometries because skulks could sneak everywhere, evolve a gorge and drop a RT. Power nodes also limits a bit the vertical space you can use, because if you don't provide power at every level then it can be a pain for marines to get power somewhere, but you also want to avoid to have hundreds of power nodes on your map. By design a power node powers a flat (? I'm not sure about this one) rectangular area, so the map geometry has to adapt to this constrain to some extend.
Then there is other problems with AI units, lack of elevators, the tech points, alien com, weldable elements, ...
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=2060808:date=Jan 15 2013, 05:44 AM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Jan 15 2013, 05:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2060808"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Someone mentioned the lack of elevators in NS2 ? Their are quite important in this room.
@Davil, could you draw a quick sketch of how you would make this particular area cyst friendly (so you can cyst the double res from each starting hive) ? I'm curious to see your creative solution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll bite. I'd do something like this: <a href="http://imgur.com/tdzFA" target="_blank"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/tdzFAl.png" border="0" class="linked-image" /></a> Yellow areas are new ramps, while the white arrow indicates where I'd move the top RT.
Eventually, NS2 will get elevators, though it isn't a priority afaik. Also, it should be noted that cysts/MACs/ARCs/Drifters not being able to scale vertical distances was the result of a quick fix to pathing rather than a set design decision. In particular, MACs and cysts used to be able to do so with no problem, but it led to some annoying bugs/exploits.
<!--quoteo(post=2060997:date=Jan 16 2013, 09:29 AM:name=Davil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Davil @ Jan 16 2013, 09:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2060997"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Side note, found this on the NS2 Facebook page
<!--quoteo(post=2061101:date=Jan 15 2013, 06:26 PM:name=Amb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Amb @ Jan 15 2013, 06:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2061101"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->not enough ramps, bro. can we have more ramps?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
supsuJoin Date: 2012-04-24Member: 151023Members, Squad Five Blue
Don't understand what everyone are shouting in here because it's pretty blunt fact that what op says is true. And as a side note we really need to get some good maps coming out.
<!--quoteo(post=2061101:date=Jan 15 2013, 06:26 PM:name=Amb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Amb @ Jan 15 2013, 06:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2061101"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->not enough ramps, bro. can we have more ramps?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There's really no way to satisfy you huh? That has multiple levels, and it has it in a realistic way like you'd expect. You'd normally see escalators with stairs nearby. Somehow this bothers you more than square holes with ladders against a square wall behind it. I don't see how that is more realistic or more imaginative.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=supsu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (supsu)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Don't understand what everyone are shouting in here because it's pretty blunt fact that what op says is true. And as a side note we really need to get some good maps coming out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Saying the internet is only for games is also sort of true, it depends on who you are and your opinion of things. I wouldn't say anything he posted initially is completely true. Sure cysts change the way that maps have to be but his opinion is really an exaggeration.
Again his opinion of a "major change in elevation" is I believe an exaggeration, I'm pretty sure if you created a map with large height differences, such as refinery has in parts, you won't find this to be an issue.
And finally his third point about alien hives needing to be built on a tech point is true, however it's always been that way. Look at this example he linked <a href="http://users.tpg.com.au/reyn116//h2.jpg" target="_blank">linked map pic</a>, you can do this in NS2, see how there is a platform that comes up? That can be done, and the hive arms will actually extend all the way to the ceiling regardless of how high it is.
<!--quoteo(post=2061101:date=Jan 16 2013, 04:26 AM:name=Amb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Amb @ Jan 16 2013, 04:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2061101"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->not enough ramps, bro. can we have more ramps?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ramps were essentially mandatory in NS1 as well. However, that is an example of mappers not adhering to design limitations.
Onos climbing up ladders? Get the ###### out. You can't get away with retarded ###### like that in an official release title.
<!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro--><sup>* Redacted * Keep it on topic. I don't want to have to clean up threads like this. - Angelusz<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></sup>
<!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro--><sup>* Redacted * Keep it on topic. I don't want to have to clean up threads like this. - Angelusz<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></sup>
<!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro--><sup>* Redacted * Keep it on topic. I don't want to have to clean up threads like this. - Angelusz<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></sup>
Seems to me like there's still a misunderstanding between the two (or more) parties here.
I <i>think</i> OP and his proponents believe that because of certain mechanics, NS1 maps are difficult or impossible to do without losing the "essence" of what the map really was. Given this, NS2's map design is limited.
What they're <i>not</i> saying is "NS2 will never have good maps." I certainly don't think that, and I doubt anyone really does. They'll just be <i>different.</i> They'll never be the same as NS1, because it's a different game, and this might bother some nostalgia-happy folks. But NS2 is a new game, for better or for worse; good NS2 maps will find different ways to be good than they were in NS1.
Meanwhile, the opponents to this train of thought seem to think that NS1 maps are indeed possible in NS2, despite the different mechanics. Some also seem to think NS2 maps right now are deep, and enjoyable.
I feel the biggest thing to keep in mind here is that these are all largely opinions. The closest we come to objectivity is whether or not all NS1 maps are possible in NS2.
Without changes? No, I don't think all of them will be entirely possible without significant alterations. Both NS2 and the maps themselves would need to be changed, and they <i>will</i> play differently, because NS2 plays differently. But it's possible we could have wall cysts. It's possible we could have pathing AI improvements. It's possible none of these changes will occur and only maps like Veil and Tanith will make it. It'll be up to mapper's ingenuity and willingness of UWE to foster some trips down memory lane in their new game.
<!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro--><sup>* Redacted * Keep it on topic. I don't want to have to clean up threads like this. - Angelusz<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></sup>
AngeluszHarmonic entropistJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18072Members, Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester
<!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro--><sup>Unfortunately I felt compelled to clean up several posts in this thread due to off-topic and negative banter. You all should know better. Also, some people would do well to tone their posts down a bit, less aggression is always better in discussions.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></sup>
I think it goes a bit far to say "UWE severely limited NS2's map design", some things are limited, yes - in my opinion just not severely. Here's a few points:
- View distance It would be really cool to have a longer view distance somewhere in the (near) future. However, seeing how NS2 can sometimes make even the fastest of PC's crawl, I think it's best to give UWE a bit more time to optimize things even further before looking at changing this.
- Ladders, elevators etc. The *only* real problem here is that <b>some</b> units/classes can't use ladders. The best way to solve this would be alternative routes. Rooms that the OP describes can still be used. A part of choosing one of the less mobile entities (Exo, onos, ARC) would be that you can't go <b>everywhere</b> on the map. Something that <b>already exists</b>. Marines can't climb walls, right?
It would be good if fades can also climb ladders; skulks and lerks can already get up easily. Gorges and onos will have to go a different way. Macs and drifters should simply be able to fly across obstacles.
Elevators should be very much possible without too much trouble. If a non-player entity needs to use it, there could be an "elevator pathing code". I envision ARCS moving onto elevators, it automatically going up after X seconds and the arcs moving on when it's on the next level. Alternatively, elevators could be controlled by the comm as well, allowing him/her to move non-player units on there and then turn it on. A bit more micro.
--
All in all, there's many more examples I can think of, but it boils down to: <b>A lot is already possible, we just need either UWE or modders to create code for it</b>. I don't think it's the engine that's too limited.
<!--quoteo(post=2061363:date=Jan 16 2013, 02:42 PM:name=Angelusz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Angelusz @ Jan 16 2013, 02:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2061363"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Macs and drifters should simply be able to fly across obstacles.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure how much work it would be, but maybe there should be two pathing meshes? One for ground units and one for air units. When creating the air mesh you could allow much larger height differences and follow ladders. Whether cysts should use the former or later would have to be tested (although cysting into a room from the vent sounds pretty awesome).
agree with OP. I was amazed, dazzled & awed by NS1 maps. They all felt completely different, and truly felt unique. I am nostalgiaing hard just thinking about them. This is currently the maximum room size in NS2 following the render distance limitation:
I was trying to build ns2_temple readyroom and it started as a great looking temple hall, but now looks tiny. All official maps are terribly bland gameplay-wise and offer almost no variation. Maps are also heavily model focused, which means if you do not re-use stock models or prepare good custom model sets your map will look less unique than others. People with no modeling experience are SOL unless they form a team.
Not to many things are not even in NS2 yet: like volumes of water and various other tiny env details I remember from NS1 such as openable blast doors, workable elevators, weldable vents etc.
When trying to map, I feel I am being forced to fit such a narrow guide that I quickly lose motivation to continue, as the map would simply be another clone of existing maps: why would I bother?
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
Would be better to have a player model somewhere as reference. I can guess at the aproximate size as I had to work around it a bit as well and that light kinda gives me an idea as well (if it is at 100%), but not everyone knows this stuff without any reference point :P
<!--quoteo(post=2061777:date=Jan 16 2013, 08:07 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Jan 16 2013, 08:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2061777"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Would be better to have a player model somewhere as reference. I can guess at the aproximate size as I had to work around it a bit as well and that light kinda gives me an idea as well (if it is at 100%), but not everyone knows this stuff without any reference point :P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ah yes, it is updated now
<!--quoteo(post=2061777:date=Jan 17 2013, 02:07 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Jan 17 2013, 02:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2061777"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Would be better to have a player model somewhere as reference.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
will do mate. See the obs and skulk on the lower ground?
Didn't read the whole post, but NS1 maps does have quite a different feel and approach approach in attack and defend. Even if you lost hives or entrenched as a marine, it does not mean you loose the game. Hive rooms use to be BIG so aliens have a lot more room to hide and attack the marines. and left can really fly like a bird. Really miss the old NS1 maps.
Ugh, sorry for not contributing to anything substantial, but the tone of these topics is what really puts me off. People just can't divorce they're observations and commitment from an incredibly snide and passive aggressive tone. Lighten up guys, sheesh.
Maybe the tool and engine will be enhanced in time and be less "Doom 3". I think it's less about the actual 'shape' of the map, and more of the ad nauseam big, heavy, industrial steely look that everything has (samey constructs, textures, etc). Maybe some map involving an alien design for example would've helped.
It just needs more props and different color pallets I guess.
<!--quoteo(post=2061107:date=Jan 16 2013, 02:38 AM:name=supsu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (supsu @ Jan 16 2013, 02:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2061107"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Don't understand what everyone are shouting in here because it's pretty blunt fact that what op says is true. And as a side note we really need to get some good maps coming out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it's... not?
Look I know the OP asks for 'NS1 vet opinions' but having played NS1 doesn't make you qualified to answer questions on level design with any degree of accuracy.
Most games have a tonne of limitations on what levels can do without breaking the mechanics, and ALL games have limitations on what levels can do without being bad levels, unenjoyable to play.
However, most if not all level designers at some point, see the limitations, and try to work around them. And what there is very little limit to is the ingenuity of content creators. Your level designers (especially community ones who aren't concerned with making money from their designs) will eventually try to do something weird. Take siege maps for example. NS1 wasn't designed for siege maps, but they were invented nonetheless and became an archetype, because the mechanics could be used to do that.
On the other hand, siege maps could be argued to be an example of bad level design in that while they mechanically function, they are not necessarily very good to play. They easily become very stale, very limited and linear in their gameplay. They offer a different style of play, but not necessarily a good one all the time.
Saying 'this mechanic is different, ergo mapping is RUINED FOREVER' is just wrong, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how level design works and is affected by game mechanics, and how level designers themselves tend to work. If you're being paid to make maps for a commercial game it's different, you can't just experiment and do whatever you like, because you need maps that work, that allow the game to be played, that are perhaps a little uninspired sometimes, but you're being paid to do it, you have a duty to provide what you're being paid to provide.
Community mappers have more freedom, they have the freedom to try odd things and create novel and striking designs, designs which might not work that well, and most of the time probably won't, but like any research or experimentation, the few successes make up for the mass of failures. NS1 was a free mod, so it's going to have more of those off the bat. NS2 I imagine will start to pick them up once community content creators start to get going, and now that UWE isn't just trying to get some basic functional maps out for release.
<!--quoteo(post=2061935:date=Jan 17 2013, 01:19 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 17 2013, 01:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2061935"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Look I know the OP asks for 'NS1 vet opinions' but having played NS1 doesn't make you qualified to answer questions on level design with any degree of accuracy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you didn't play NS1 then your opinion isn't influenced by a sufficient amount of nostalgia, and is therefore invalid.
Summary of points in OP: 1. Requiring paths to be open limits what can be done, specifically in allowing any mid/large jumps in height without alternate paths or ramps being introduced to compensate. 2. Draw distance is limited, which limits the size of rooms (without this factoring into gameplay in said rooms). 3. Hives can only be built low to the ground relative to where the tech point platform is.
Which one(s) of these three things aren't true, and if any aren't, how are they not true?
Whilst there certainly might be undertones of "ns1 maps are better", I think a lot of people replying negatively to the OP are going a bit overboard with their assumptions. I don't think anybody is trying to say that "mapping is ruined forever", but want to have a reasonable and intelligent discussion on the subject at hand - the limitations. Whilst everybody has their own opinion on how much these limitations matter, the limitations do exist.
<!--quoteo(post=2061935:date=Jan 17 2013, 06:19 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 17 2013, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2061935"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Look I know the OP asks for 'NS1 vet opinions' but having played NS1 doesn't make you qualified to answer questions on level design with any degree of accuracy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think OP thinks that NS1 players are more qualified or authorities on what makes good level design, only that they have played the old maps, whereas people who haven't played ns2 haven't. They therefore know how the absence of such limitations effected gameplay in a similar game to ns2 (ns1). That is not to say their opinions are worth more in the subject of level design
<!--quoteo(post=2061935:date=Jan 17 2013, 06:19 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 17 2013, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2061935"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Most games have a tonne of limitations on what levels can do without breaking the mechanics, and ALL games have limitations on what levels can do without being bad levels, unenjoyable to play.
However, most if not all level designers at some point, see the limitations, and try to work around them. And what there is very little limit to is the ingenuity of content creators. Your level designers (especially community ones who aren't concerned with making money from their designs) will eventually try to do something weird. Take siege maps for example. NS1 wasn't designed for siege maps, but they were invented nonetheless and became an archetype, because the mechanics could be used to do that.
On the other hand, siege maps could be argued to be an example of bad level design in that while they mechanically function, they are not necessarily very good to play. They easily become very stale, very limited and linear in their gameplay. They offer a different style of play, but not necessarily a good one all the time.
Saying 'this mechanic is different, ergo mapping is RUINED FOREVER' is just wrong, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how level design works and is affected by game mechanics, and how level designers themselves tend to work. If you're being paid to make maps for a commercial game it's different, you can't just experiment and do whatever you like, because you need maps that work, that allow the game to be played, that are perhaps a little uninspired sometimes, but you're being paid to do it, you have a duty to provide what you're being paid to provide.
Community mappers have more freedom, they have the freedom to try odd things and create novel and striking designs, designs which might not work that well, and most of the time probably won't, but like any research or experimentation, the few successes make up for the mass of failures. NS1 was a free mod, so it's going to have more of those off the bat. NS2 I imagine will start to pick them up once community content creators start to get going, and now that UWE isn't just trying to get some basic functional maps out for release.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All this stuff is spot on. Although, again, I don't think anybody's actually saying "mapping is ruined forever" because of these limitations. If somebody did say that however, they would be wrong.
I myself am excited for the future of mapping in NS2. The only limitation in the OP I'm at all concerned about is compensating for cyst chains (if infestation can't reach somewhere, it needs to be compensated for with an alternate route or ramp). All that needs to be done for this however is to allow mappers to set locations where the cyst mechanic can be broken, allowing large jumps in height between two locations. Maybe not an 'elegant' solution, but a simple one that allows mappers a bit of freedom in this regard.
Comments
Perhaps not explicitly, but the OP is certainly worded in a fashion that will (quite reasonably) make people think it is an excuse to bash the game rather than an actual legitimate complaint.
Personally, from a level design perspective, I don't see any of the issues the OP points out as actually being issues. Stating that certain kinds of maps are just 'impossible' because of a minor mechanical hurdle is simply incorrect. Any level designer worth his salt can work around restrictions like those, or even turn them into level mechanics. 'Can't make elevators' is not 'NS2 maps are severely limited and NS1 was better'. It's 'NS2 level designers need to figure out how to not rely on elevators' which is perfectly feasible, and even advantageous in terms of encouraging solid level flow.
Looking at the topic's tittle and the condescendant tone of following posts, I would not disagree on your understatement.
but you forgot to mention that UWE themselves have tried to limit mappers by creating rules on how those maps should be created (if they are ever to be accepted as official that is) This means that there will be no Maze of corridors anymore on official maps and no more interesting layouts, instead we have this : tech room - small coridor - rt room - small coridor - tech room ... rince repeat. This is why all the maps seem to have a wagon wheel design<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I had never noticed that, and now that I think about it, youre right, the maps are so bland design wise...
<!--quoteo(post=2060004:date=Jan 13 2013, 06:09 AM:name=Namm)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Namm @ Jan 13 2013, 06:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2060004"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If the commander could zoom and rotate a bit, placing Cysts (and other structures) on walls shouldn't be a problem and it would be possible to have vertical Cyst chains. It's a 3D engine afterall, why not make the RTS part fully 3D (except for the roofs, which have to be transparent). All the aspects are already in the game, they'll just have to figure out how to make zoom/rotate reasonably glitch free.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
XCOM Enemy Unknown does a great job at drop down multi level gameplay, they should try to do the same thing.
Condescending tone of everyone else? I think the only people really being condescending are the people agreeing that it's impossible to make good maps the way things are. You want some proof? Read the first line of the first post in this topic it goes like this:
"OK I'm keeping this as short as possible to keep it "TL DR" tards friendly."
Is calling people 'tards' really a great way to open a discussion about your opinion?
<!--quoteo(post=2060946:date=Jan 15 2013, 01:29 PM:name=DamDSx)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DamDSx @ Jan 15 2013, 01:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2060946"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I had never noticed that, and now that I think about it, youre right, the maps are so bland design wise...
XCOM Enemy Unknown does a great job at drop down multi level gameplay, they should try to do the same thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't find any of the maps to be really bland design wise, look at docking. The amount of work that went into designing the outside area that the players see through the windows is very well detailed considering most of it is never seen. By it's very nature the game requires a fairly good bit of symmetry to maintain balance. If you look at maps in Starcraft, they're basically the same map divided into sections. You can fold those maps in half and they're almost exactly the same, not quite the truth with NS2 maps. If you're going to call them bland at least show that you can do something better is all I'm going to say.
XCOM EU does NOT have a great system for multilevel game play. I can't tell you how many times I got pissed because I moved guys somewhere I didn't want to cause of how it deals with multiple levels. I especially hated how a lot of times you can't see into an area because it doesn't realize you're trying to look under something so it'll keep snapping your cursor to the roof.
<img src="https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/14932_10151247397868105_1041346746_n.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
..
Any other *actual* fundamental differences?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cysts and power node mainly. Cysts require that you have a relatively flat path from every alien starting hive to every natural RT, which make a lot of ground on most maps. NS1 maps could use more complex geometries because skulks could sneak everywhere, evolve a gorge and drop a RT. Power nodes also limits a bit the vertical space you can use, because if you don't provide power at every level then it can be a pain for marines to get power somewhere, but you also want to avoid to have hundreds of power nodes on your map. By design a power node powers a flat (? I'm not sure about this one) rectangular area, so the map geometry has to adapt to this constrain to some extend.
Then there is other problems with AI units, lack of elevators, the tech points, alien com, weldable elements, ...
@Davil, could you draw a quick sketch of how you would make this particular area cyst friendly (so you can cyst the double res from each starting hive) ? I'm curious to see your creative solution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll bite. I'd do something like this:
<a href="http://imgur.com/tdzFA" target="_blank"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/tdzFAl.png" border="0" class="linked-image" /></a>
Yellow areas are new ramps, while the white arrow indicates where I'd move the top RT.
Eventually, NS2 will get elevators, though it isn't a priority afaik. Also, it should be noted that cysts/MACs/ARCs/Drifters not being able to scale vertical distances was the result of a quick fix to pathing rather than a set design decision. In particular, MACs and cysts used to be able to do so with no problem, but it led to some annoying bugs/exploits.
<img src="https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/14932_10151247397868105_1041346746_n.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
not enough ramps, bro. can we have more ramps?
Needs wheelchair ramp for the handicrappers.
There's really no way to satisfy you huh? That has multiple levels, and it has it in a realistic way like you'd expect. You'd normally see escalators with stairs nearby. Somehow this bothers you more than square holes with ladders against a square wall behind it. I don't see how that is more realistic or more imaginative.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=supsu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (supsu)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Don't understand what everyone are shouting in here because it's pretty blunt fact that what op says is true. And as a side note we really need to get some good maps coming out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saying the internet is only for games is also sort of true, it depends on who you are and your opinion of things. I wouldn't say anything he posted initially is completely true. Sure cysts change the way that maps have to be but his opinion is really an exaggeration.
Again his opinion of a "major change in elevation" is I believe an exaggeration, I'm pretty sure if you created a map with large height differences, such as refinery has in parts, you won't find this to be an issue.
And finally his third point about alien hives needing to be built on a tech point is true, however it's always been that way. Look at this example he linked <a href="http://users.tpg.com.au/reyn116//h2.jpg" target="_blank">linked map pic</a>, you can do this in NS2, see how there is a platform that comes up? That can be done, and the hive arms will actually extend all the way to the ceiling regardless of how high it is.
Ramps were essentially mandatory in NS1 as well. However, that is an example of mappers not adhering to design limitations.
Onos climbing up ladders? Get the ###### out. You can't get away with retarded ###### like that in an official release title.
I <i>think</i> OP and his proponents believe that because of certain mechanics, NS1 maps are difficult or impossible to do without losing the "essence" of what the map really was. Given this, NS2's map design is limited.
What they're <i>not</i> saying is "NS2 will never have good maps." I certainly don't think that, and I doubt anyone really does. They'll just be <i>different.</i> They'll never be the same as NS1, because it's a different game, and this might bother some nostalgia-happy folks. But NS2 is a new game, for better or for worse; good NS2 maps will find different ways to be good than they were in NS1.
Meanwhile, the opponents to this train of thought seem to think that NS1 maps are indeed possible in NS2, despite the different mechanics. Some also seem to think NS2 maps right now are deep, and enjoyable.
I feel the biggest thing to keep in mind here is that these are all largely opinions. The closest we come to objectivity is whether or not all NS1 maps are possible in NS2.
Without changes? No, I don't think all of them will be entirely possible without significant alterations. Both NS2 and the maps themselves would need to be changed, and they <i>will</i> play differently, because NS2 plays differently. But it's possible we could have wall cysts. It's possible we could have pathing AI improvements. It's possible none of these changes will occur and only maps like Veil and Tanith will make it. It'll be up to mapper's ingenuity and willingness of UWE to foster some trips down memory lane in their new game.
Also, some people would do well to tone their posts down a bit, less aggression is always better in discussions.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></sup>
I think it goes a bit far to say "UWE severely limited NS2's map design", some things are limited, yes - in my opinion just not severely. Here's a few points:
- View distance
It would be really cool to have a longer view distance somewhere in the (near) future. However, seeing how NS2 can sometimes make even the fastest of PC's crawl, I think it's best to give UWE a bit more time to optimize things even further before looking at changing this.
- Ladders, elevators etc.
The *only* real problem here is that <b>some</b> units/classes can't use ladders. The best way to solve this would be alternative routes. Rooms that the OP describes can still be used. A part of choosing one of the less mobile entities (Exo, onos, ARC) would be that you can't go <b>everywhere</b> on the map. Something that <b>already exists</b>. Marines can't climb walls, right?
It would be good if fades can also climb ladders; skulks and lerks can already get up easily. Gorges and onos will have to go a different way. Macs and drifters should simply be able to fly across obstacles.
Elevators should be very much possible without too much trouble. If a non-player entity needs to use it, there could be an "elevator pathing code". I envision ARCS moving onto elevators, it automatically going up after X seconds and the arcs moving on when it's on the next level. Alternatively, elevators could be controlled by the comm as well, allowing him/her to move non-player units on there and then turn it on. A bit more micro.
--
All in all, there's many more examples I can think of, but it boils down to: <b>A lot is already possible, we just need either UWE or modders to create code for it</b>. I don't think it's the engine that's too limited.
I'm not sure how much work it would be, but maybe there should be two pathing meshes? One for ground units and one for air units. When creating the air mesh you could allow much larger height differences and follow ladders. Whether cysts should use the former or later would have to be tested (although cysting into a room from the vent sounds pretty awesome).
This is currently the maximum room size in NS2 following the render distance limitation:
<img src="http://gyazo.com/6a7652f0dafef8a4be036e3184caff0e.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
I was trying to build ns2_temple readyroom and it started as a great looking temple hall, but now looks tiny. All official maps are terribly bland gameplay-wise and offer almost no variation. Maps are also heavily model focused, which means if you do not re-use stock models or prepare good custom model sets your map will look less unique than others. People with no modeling experience are SOL unless they form a team.
Not to many things are not even in NS2 yet: like volumes of water and various other tiny env details I remember from NS1 such as openable blast doors, workable elevators, weldable vents etc.
When trying to map, I feel I am being forced to fit such a narrow guide that I quickly lose motivation to continue, as the map would simply be another clone of existing maps: why would I bother?
ah yes, it is updated now
will do mate. See the obs and skulk on the lower ground?
<img src="http://users.tpg.com.au/reyn116//8.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Maybe the tool and engine will be enhanced in time and be less "Doom 3". I think it's less about the actual 'shape' of the map, and more of the ad nauseam big, heavy, industrial steely look that everything has (samey constructs, textures, etc). Maybe some map involving an alien design for example would've helped.
It just needs more props and different color pallets I guess.
No it's... not?
Look I know the OP asks for 'NS1 vet opinions' but having played NS1 doesn't make you qualified to answer questions on level design with any degree of accuracy.
Most games have a tonne of limitations on what levels can do without breaking the mechanics, and ALL games have limitations on what levels can do without being bad levels, unenjoyable to play.
However, most if not all level designers at some point, see the limitations, and try to work around them. And what there is very little limit to is the ingenuity of content creators. Your level designers (especially community ones who aren't concerned with making money from their designs) will eventually try to do something weird. Take siege maps for example. NS1 wasn't designed for siege maps, but they were invented nonetheless and became an archetype, because the mechanics could be used to do that.
On the other hand, siege maps could be argued to be an example of bad level design in that while they mechanically function, they are not necessarily very good to play. They easily become very stale, very limited and linear in their gameplay. They offer a different style of play, but not necessarily a good one all the time.
Saying 'this mechanic is different, ergo mapping is RUINED FOREVER' is just wrong, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how level design works and is affected by game mechanics, and how level designers themselves tend to work. If you're being paid to make maps for a commercial game it's different, you can't just experiment and do whatever you like, because you need maps that work, that allow the game to be played, that are perhaps a little uninspired sometimes, but you're being paid to do it, you have a duty to provide what you're being paid to provide.
Community mappers have more freedom, they have the freedom to try odd things and create novel and striking designs, designs which might not work that well, and most of the time probably won't, but like any research or experimentation, the few successes make up for the mass of failures. NS1 was a free mod, so it's going to have more of those off the bat. NS2 I imagine will start to pick them up once community content creators start to get going, and now that UWE isn't just trying to get some basic functional maps out for release.
If you didn't play NS1 then your opinion isn't influenced by a sufficient amount of nostalgia, and is therefore invalid.
Summary of points in OP:
1. Requiring paths to be open limits what can be done, specifically in allowing any mid/large jumps in height without alternate paths or ramps being introduced to compensate.
2. Draw distance is limited, which limits the size of rooms (without this factoring into gameplay in said rooms).
3. Hives can only be built low to the ground relative to where the tech point platform is.
Which one(s) of these three things aren't true, and if any aren't, how are they not true?
Whilst there certainly might be undertones of "ns1 maps are better", I think a lot of people replying negatively to the OP are going a bit overboard with their assumptions. I don't think anybody is trying to say that "mapping is ruined forever", but want to have a reasonable and intelligent discussion on the subject at hand - the limitations. Whilst everybody has their own opinion on how much these limitations matter, the limitations do exist.
<!--quoteo(post=2061935:date=Jan 17 2013, 06:19 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 17 2013, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2061935"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Look I know the OP asks for 'NS1 vet opinions' but having played NS1 doesn't make you qualified to answer questions on level design with any degree of accuracy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think OP thinks that NS1 players are more qualified or authorities on what makes good level design, only that they have played the old maps, whereas people who haven't played ns2 haven't. They therefore know how the absence of such limitations effected gameplay in a similar game to ns2 (ns1). That is not to say their opinions are worth more in the subject of level design
<!--quoteo(post=2061935:date=Jan 17 2013, 06:19 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 17 2013, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2061935"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Most games have a tonne of limitations on what levels can do without breaking the mechanics, and ALL games have limitations on what levels can do without being bad levels, unenjoyable to play.
However, most if not all level designers at some point, see the limitations, and try to work around them. And what there is very little limit to is the ingenuity of content creators. Your level designers (especially community ones who aren't concerned with making money from their designs) will eventually try to do something weird. Take siege maps for example. NS1 wasn't designed for siege maps, but they were invented nonetheless and became an archetype, because the mechanics could be used to do that.
On the other hand, siege maps could be argued to be an example of bad level design in that while they mechanically function, they are not necessarily very good to play. They easily become very stale, very limited and linear in their gameplay. They offer a different style of play, but not necessarily a good one all the time.
Saying 'this mechanic is different, ergo mapping is RUINED FOREVER' is just wrong, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how level design works and is affected by game mechanics, and how level designers themselves tend to work. If you're being paid to make maps for a commercial game it's different, you can't just experiment and do whatever you like, because you need maps that work, that allow the game to be played, that are perhaps a little uninspired sometimes, but you're being paid to do it, you have a duty to provide what you're being paid to provide.
Community mappers have more freedom, they have the freedom to try odd things and create novel and striking designs, designs which might not work that well, and most of the time probably won't, but like any research or experimentation, the few successes make up for the mass of failures. NS1 was a free mod, so it's going to have more of those off the bat. NS2 I imagine will start to pick them up once community content creators start to get going, and now that UWE isn't just trying to get some basic functional maps out for release.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All this stuff is spot on. Although, again, I don't think anybody's actually saying "mapping is ruined forever" because of these limitations. If somebody did say that however, they would be wrong.
I myself am excited for the future of mapping in NS2. The only limitation in the OP I'm at all concerned about is compensating for cyst chains (if infestation can't reach somewhere, it needs to be compensated for with an alternate route or ramp). All that needs to be done for this however is to allow mappers to set locations where the cyst mechanic can be broken, allowing large jumps in height between two locations. Maybe not an 'elegant' solution, but a simple one that allows mappers a bit of freedom in this regard.