Development Blog Update - Marine "Power Grid" design Options

[God_Hand]

I don't like this idea. It makes the game feel too "fixed", even just as an idea. The whole thing that got me into NS was that teams were versatile, and could build almost anywhere they wanted, when and where they needed. I don't think structures should rely on other structures to work, isn't that kind of a downgrade in technology between the first game and the second? Although even now there are maps that seem to focus on a fixed point on the map. ns_coldturn anyone?

I feel like this system of fixed tech points... well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_Shark

You can see where I'm going with this.

[UberSprode]

Here's something that might be interesting.
Have the ability to create "resource generators" on resource nodes inside rooms that are unconnected to the command chair power source. These towers would, instead of mining resources for the marines to spend, would burn it, creating just enough energy to power structures inside the room. Maybe it even has to fill up a battery first, so that you cant immediately start using it's power after it's built. At a later time, after the room has been connected up to the main grid, resource generators can be upgraded into regular resource towers.
This would allow for limited expansion outside of the main power grid area, but would take extra time and money to do so, it would also mean one less resource node for the marines to profit from.

Another idea might be something like the power management in Total Annihilation.
Larger buildings both produce and use power, most buildings use more power than they generate, meaning that they need to be connected to the main power grid in order to function. But if a building is put into standby mode, it no longer can be used for its function, but the extra power it's generating can be used for other nearby structures. Maybe even allow some mobile things, like the siege cannon, to be powered down, and it's battery used to power structures. This would allow for areas that get cut off from the main power to shut down several of the less important structures (RTs, phasegates, etc) in order to keep things like turrets functional until the room can be reconnected or a resource generator (see above) can be constructed.

I think it's important to allow for something either than a binary ON/OFF of each room, to help keep small changes from making cascading effects that can greatly tip the favor of one team or another.
And this would also create a wider variety of strategies (especially near the start of the game) to keep the aliens on their toes and not knowing what to expect.

[aeroripper]

I think I understand what the general idea of territory is. But it helps me visualize it better if its more like a story being told:

• A couple of marines walk into a cold, dimly lit 'neutral' room with dynamic flashlights (like in L4D) and locate the RT position. A weld bot comes beeping around the corner into the room, and allows the comm to place the RT ghost from a 'burst' of nanites the weld bot has (likely an upgrade the comm can purchase to help with expansion). The marines build the RT, and the whole room comes to life giving the comm full control over that territory.

• A few buildings are placed and the marines go concentrate on some other part of the map. A gorge comes along the quiet room and lays down some seeds of dynamic infestation. It starts spreading over the room and lights start going out, and the room takes on an orangeish hue from the 'bulbous light pods' that grow from the infestation. The alien commander now has enough DI in the room to open up a nydus canal, and a few skulks flood in from one of the alien hive rooms, and take out the RT to completely power down the area. The marines are distracted by a diversion on the other side of the map, and don't respond in time to save the ancillary base.

• A short time after losing that territory, and before the aliens have time to really fortify their newly captured position, a marine PG is setup in a nearby powered room (or from a weld bot burst). 3 angry marines come into the room with 2 HMGs and a flamethrower, and burn away the alien expansion and re-take their former spot.

• The marines are more serious about holding this spot this time, and plop down a new CC along with sentries. Tier2 tech is now unlocked and the main commander has the option of opening up the second chair for support functions (in field medding, ammo etc...)

• The marines are now pushing one of the alien hives with mobile siege cannons and most of their team. The aliens have an onos and gorge free to break away from hive defense, and take out a Tier2 CC position. The gorge lays down some DI outside this room once again, and the onos now directly attacks the self powered CC to kill their support functions aiding them so greatly in their assault on the alien hive. He is succesful at killing the chair and kills the secondary comm, and gives the hive defense aliens enough of an edge to repel the attack.

• The marines lost the battle but the war is ongoing. They lost their secondary comm chair for now, but remained in power control of the room with the RT. The process begins again. This could be played out in multiple parts of the map wherever the marines have territory.

A good compromise between marines fighting a mostly defensive battle with power controlled territory/bases, and the pure thrill of getting a lucky PG to take down a hive on an unsuspecting alien team, is to allow the weld bot a function to use energy to spawn a structure anywhere. The main focus is still controlling territory and teching up, but there is still some random strategies possible with a mechanic like that. You could also play around with a second marine commander doing meds/ammo/ directly controlling the weld bot etc...

This post has been edited by aeroripper: Apr 11 2009, 07:18 PM

[Buggy]

I don't really like the idea. I've never liked domination modes in pretty much any game because it usually boils down to both teams more or less splashing onto each other at central choke points, ending up in a tug of war between A and B. What happens in NS1 combat maps is a pretty decent example.
I do realize this happened in NS1 classic a lot, but having a 5-minute fight having all the players on a map concentrated to a hive area into defending and attacking it, before continuing the usual business of dynamically conquering the map by cutting off entrypoints, sneaking around, fast rush attacks in unsuspected locations etc is VERY different from having a 30-minute fight where all the players are constantly in a concentrated area before one team finally crumbles under pressure.

I found that the main appeal of NS gameplay was the dynamic of it all, like the guy before me said, you could be versatile, creative, smart, clever, and intelligent about the way you went about conquering a map, and because of the hive starting locations, no one round was ever the same as the last. Of course, this created some balance issues (a lot of it mapping related though), but still. It was dynamic and kept the gameplay fresh.

I feel that this type of thing generally "funnels" players into concentrated areas, leading to a lot of repetition and stale gameplay. It makes the gameplay "static".

If i'm completely off the mark here, let me know. By the way, I do realize the complicated and dynamic gameplay of NS1 made for a very hard to get into game, which lead to problems attracting new players to it.

[Crispy]

The resource tower pumps resources into the Command Station, and the Command Station powers the resource tower. When the resource tower is active, the entire room sparks to life and "powers on". If a resource tower is then built in an adjacent room, that room powers up and other structures in that room can function. Structures will not function if the room they are in are not powered up.

When resource towers or command stations take damage, lights and computers in rooms that are powered by that node will start flickering. Destroying a resource tower in the middle of a chain, or destroying the command station at the end of the chain will power all dependent rooms down. Damaging a tower or command station will cause lights and monitors in affected rooms to flicker, hinting at what might occur. When the power goes out, infantry portals stop spawning in players, armories can't be used to buy or resupply, sentries power down, etc. These power regions will be drawn for the Commander, and will blink red when unpowered.

I would be really careful at how much you allow the unpowered areas to differ in terms of lighting. Remember that if you make it a lot darker players will change their gamma settings to compensate, which means you're basically introducing a nerf to new or uninitiated players who haven't altered their gamma. I would keep it to just a dimming of low-light-emitting monitors and maybe disabling some moving machinery and so on, but leave the lighting mostly unchanged.

---

Multiple Commanders
Multiple commanders means more griefing if it's not handled well. I would look to the Source mod Empires for a good example of a voting system that works. If you are using Steamworks at all, you can do some basic player minutes tracking so you can see on the votelist which players have played how many minutes as Commander. Obviously an eject system is required.

- Does this mean there will be less depth to Commanding?
- Which Commanders decide on the direction of the technology tree?
- How easy is it for Commanders to really feel like they're Commanding if they have another player (perhaps unintentionally) working against their intended strategy?
- How do players know which Commander to listen to if each Commander is giving different instructions?

See below for my second post. The forum seems to automatically delete your entire post if you go over a word limit (which it doesn't inform you of). You might want to fix that.

This post has been edited by Crispy: Apr 11 2009, 07:53 PM

[aeroripper]

You shouldn't be able to spawn a hive anywhere, the same with a CC. It seems like there will be set positions where hives/CCs can be built in each map (however many of them). Of course which position you get on each map at the start will be random for both teams. The difference in NS2 is that its more dynamic because:

1) There are more locations to spawn hives or CCs (but a max of 3 total). Both aliens AND marines have random starting points. So this means every starting room will have to be balanced with the others.

2) Each room could be different strategically (higher ceilings, narrow entrance cor-doors etc...), but still balanced due to other helpful factors. For example, if you spawn in the biodome area, the marines have more open space to shoot the aliens. Although on the flipside, infestation grows faster because of the sunlight coming in through the windows which helps the aliens.

Even in just one map, I can imagine this would create an immense amount of play testing to get it right.

This post has been edited by aeroripper: Apr 11 2009, 07:48 PM

[Crispy]

Continued

I think the idea of having fixed locations has its benefits and its problems. Before you could relocate a base anywhere and the Hives were known locations.

Fixed possible locations for the Hives means as much control as NS had in terms of balancing Hive areas.

More possible locations for the Hives, if done well, means more strategic options for the Aliens, but see below for a counter-argument.

More possible locations for the Hives means more margin for error and therefore more balance testing. In the current official NS mapcycle you have maybe a handful of maps that have 3 fair Hive locations. In the maps that have disadvantageous Hives, it is obvious what the Aliens' next move will be: they will not try to set up a Hive in a disadvantageous location as their first choice. In NS2 it sounds like we're looking at up to 6 possible locations for Hives. Unless these are meticulously tested, I can't see how we won't arrive at the same situation as before. There will be an illusion of choice, but realistically there will be stronger and weaker Hives, and there won't be as much strategic breadth as you might think. More choices only = deeper strategy if there is a balance between the choices. You would have to do an awful lot of testing to make 6 possible Hive locations that are all balanced in terms of defensibility versus strategic location.

Fixed tech nodes means a lot more control for the level designer in terms of balancing the map. Knowing where objects can and cannot be built should eliminate a lot of time spent destructively testing for things like inaccessible structures. It also means a lot more focus can be given to the flow and interconnectivity of the map.

More designer-placed CCs = more designer-placed IP locations = more margin for error = more testing. In NS you can have a PG or IP built anywhere, but since this is down to the user, if a spawnpoint is in a bad location and conducive to easy spawncamping it's not the fault of the designer. In NS2 it sounds like there will be fixed IP locations, which means it is up to the design and test team to ensure these are placed correctly and don't give any serious advantage or disadvantage to either team.

More Commander slots means more shared Commander expertise. This is something we looked at for Nuclear Dawn and were very enthusiastic about. The main idea was that in other games with Commanders you very rarely get to play Commander and when you do the learning curve is so steep and the expectations so high that it's nearly impossible to have fun. With more than one Commander, you have an opportunity to introduce new players into the Commander role at a more gentle pace.

More Commander slots means less depth to Commanding? Sharing tasks with other Commanders ultimately means less control, unless they're not sharing tasks and operate independantly. When we discussed it for ND, the first Commander was -the- Commander, and the other, secondary, Commanders were really just glorified Engineers who could deploy structures in an area and gain access to the Commander abilities (by this point our Commanders were a class, and mobile).

More Commander slots means less authority? Who actually gives the orders? Commanding isn't about committee discussion, it's about leadership, authority and control. In this case, who has authority now?

More Commander slots means more cross-chatter? It's hard enough when you have a know-it-all Marine telling you how to do your job, what about another Commander? Usually the Commander dominated the voicecomms in NS, so in NS2 are we going to have two or three Commanders vying for our attention?

More Commander slots means more opportunities for griefing. How easy will it be to eject a particular Commander? How easy will it be for the average player to keep track of Commanders to know which one should be kicked if two Commanders vote against eachother? How do we decide who gets in the second or third CCs? How might a constant string of Commander votes and Eject votes affect the flow of the game?

In general I like the idea, but it does sound like it means a lot more balance testing because of the amount of control you are removing from the player in terms of structure (and spawn) placement, which I'm not sure is what you envisaged.

---

This opens up some really interesting possibilities for what the tech nodes are used for. Why only CCs for example? Someone asked what the use of the tech nodes would be for a team who owned more than 3. Personally I'd really like the idea of using these tech nodes for other advanced structures that represent gambits and also accelerate victories. I'll explain:

Power Generator Concept
For me it would be interesting to have tech nodes used for CCs or some sort of Power generator. Now, the CCs supposedly produce power, but what about if you had a structure that produces more power than the CC but means you can't build in the vicinity?

Imagine if a Power Generator pushed out more power to the res nodes, allowing you to refine at a faster rate, its addition would open up two different tech paths: technology OR production. For example, let's say the tech path for the Power generator is the following:

CC1 > CC2 > Power Gen Research > Power Gen

When you reach your second tech node you drop your second CC. Then you research power generators. Now when you reach your third node, you can either drop a third CC or a Power Generator. The CC means you open up more branches of the tech tree and get access to advanced weapons. But the Power Generator would allow you to produce your current set of technology and research at a much faster rate. If done well, this could represent a really interesting bit of depth in the game. Do you delay your future tech in favour of unlocking current tech faster, or do you jump straight to future tech and wait around with less equipment and less overall research unlocked?

This post has been edited by Crispy: Apr 11 2009, 07:53 PM

[Ryse_Slade]

Building on the idea of flickering lights when RTs/CCs are under attack...

- Dynamic light/sound environments depending on the owner of a location. eg. rooms with powered marine RTs having bright lights and the clicking buzzing sounds of circuits in the background. Neutral rooms in dim light maybe even no background noise at all... and finally alien infested rooms pretty dark and creepy with random bubbling and gurgling noises (makes hive sight even more useful in home territory). When a location is "powered" the sound of a power generator starting up or alien infestation spreading.

On the power grid design...

Assuming you have to build a RT chain to power up a new CC location comebacks would be pretty much impossible once aliens siege the last marine base. So no more game delaying relocations.
Marines would still be forced to play offensive/aggressive because they have to establish power chains if they want to spread out on the map. Once they have control over another tech point they could build defenses and use it as a fallback base - while at the same time they become less dependend on the power chain. This leads to the conclusion that fortified bases (CC/RT rooms) will still be as hard to crack as they have ever been. When the marines lock down four tech points there is hardly any way to break the power chain (because all rooms will be connected to at least two tech points). This could lead to pretty stale and boring uphill battles for the alien team with marines just teching up before they crush the last hive(s).

With mobile siege weapons marines will still be able to progress in a limited way without having a power chain. If you just rush from RT to RT and never build a CC in between you are open to attacks that could really cut your power supply. Strategy matters.

On the issue of the link between tech points and tech level. I do not think the choice of rushing (depending on chains) or turtling (getting tech points) is limited in any way. This depends a bit on balance at early tech levels but the aliens should be able to stop a rush by breaking the power supply chain or stop the turtling by using guerilla tactics.

Having two (or more) commanders sounds interesting but I can understand why people don't like the idea. Imagine players jumping into the CC just to drop a shotgun for themself. At the same time the idea of two commanders (maybe even with split resources) when there is no power connection between their CCs - and the requirement to have another commander to build at the other base - sounds very interesting but this would probably add a layer of complexity that goes well beyond the scope of a shooter.

On the topic of "stronger" resource towers... I am not sure this is a good idea because it would make breaking a power chain pretty hard. Electrified RTs are already hard to take down. Even stronger defenses would defeat the purpose of the power chains because aliens could not take them down without gathering forces and leaving the hives open to attacks at the same time while the marines that depend on those power chains could just stomp the hive at the front. I suggest putting additional defenses to the CC that would also protect the RT close by. That way a tech points would have a bit of defense by itself as soon as it is "powered up" while not making lonely RTs unnecessary hard to take down.

Would be really nice to hear more about alien infestation and how it is supposed to work in contrast to the marine tech. My suggestion here would be a movement speed reduction (for marines) to make it more important to stop the infestation (powered rooms make it harder for aliens to ambush).

[scary_jeff]

I like the power idea, and the node chaining sounds promising. I really don't like the idea of tech being related to map control so directly. A great thing in NS1 was that if the aliens were able to hold strategic points from the marines, if they didn't then go on the offensive, killing nodes and attacking the base, the marines could tech up while keeping the aliens on the defensive with 'budget' attacks. Aliens had to think more on their feet. If tech depends on control of a few key points, then if marines fail to do this, it seems like their game is really over. There's only one way to win. You're adding more dynamic elements, but linking and constraining them in a way that actually cuts down on the number of different ways to win the game.

Similarly with the fixed placement of some structures. I think this will cut down on the number of ways a game can really be won. Everybody hates a stupid relocate or a base layout that makes it impossible to defend, but the benefit of allowing this is that sometimes, somebody comes up with something really good, and aliens have to learn how to counter it. The game stays interesting and new thanks to innovative commanding, with no input from the mapper of developer - the more scope for this there is, the better.

If aliens work out a way to easily kill some structure that marines always place in a certain point, the comm can just place it somewhere else. If any structure is fixed by the mapper, when somebody finds a weakness in the placement (which is pretty inevitable no matter how much testing you do ['build a better idiot']), the map could be completely killed until an update is released. Even if there isn't a really serious problem with placement, there's still going to be loads of people complaining about it - if everything but the RT is freely placeable, players can manage this issue themselves.

Having said all that, I do worry a bit that most of the comments here (including mine) are from people who played NS1. Also I guess a lot of playtesters will be people who played NS1. This could at least partially invalidate what we are saying, because we all have a preconceived idea of what we think will and won't work for what is really a brand new game. I don't know how you get thought-through input from people who have no interest in preserving elements of NS1.

+1 for 'loving the frequent updates'. need more videos!

[Deadzone]

I'm... really uncomfortable with this setup. I honestly find most games with linked control points to be pretty boring. UT2k4 is a great example of how it just goes back and forth over the same two or three battles in an infinite repeat until one side screws up. TF2 I think got around this problem with varied arenas around each control point, and the 9 classes added variety as players switch to different combinations to combat the enemy team.

The thing I hate about the provided example map is that it's PERFECTLY symmetrical. Sure, the actual rooms aren't mirrored, but the layout is identical. One thing I love about NS1 is that the maps had a great feel to them. There were very few mirrored areas, and the marine spawn and each hive (and their surrounding sections of the map) generally had their own unique shape and feel. I like that each zone encompasses a few rooms/hallways, but it just reeks of that underlaying symmetrical design.

One thing I would like to see is some maps that have rooms that are linked to each other (transferring "power" to each other) but that aren't connected physically. Maybe a window with unbreakable glass, or maybe only connected by a vent. One look down and you might realize "oh crap, they're about to hit our RT!" but since the marine can't get there directly, the team has to scramble over to the next room that IS connected to the endangered RT. Likewise, a vent between rooms creates a sense of tension and vulnerability that will keep marines on their toes.


I do not like this change from NS1, but with a good map design and new gameplay mechanics (weapons, weldbots, alien abilities, anything you haven't shown), it might turn out to be a great game regardless.

[TheNinthPlayer]

I love this idea!

[aeroripper]

The thing I hate about the provided example map is that it's PERFECTLY symmetrical. Sure, the actual rooms aren't mirrored, but the layout is identical. One thing I love about NS1 is that the maps had a great feel to them. There were very few mirrored areas, and the marine spawn and each hive (and their surrounding sections of the map) generally had their own unique shape and feel. I like that each zone encompasses a few rooms/hallways, but it just reeks of that underlaying symmetrical design.

That's what I've always hated about any recent RTS game. All the multiplayer maps are completely mirrored for the most part. Sure it works great for being even competitively, but its pretty stale visually.

[juice]

In NS1, sure you can build anywhere. And in the beginning, I remember this freedom. But quickly, you realize what works and what doesn't, and soon there is only 1 viable strategy. Anything else and it's EJECT! Ah, and good old DMS, etc. And OMG why are you building a sensory THERE?! You're supposed to put it in the east vent! A TF, at alpha?! Noob comm, eject...

Sometimes the right restrictions lead to more choices once the strategic landscape has had time to settle in.

And you still can build anywhere, just not res nodes (just like NS1), hives, or comm chairs. I also think the total effect of node chaining on structures, economy, and tech has yet to be decided.

This post has been edited by juice: Apr 11 2009, 10:16 PM

[tjosan]

Ah, and good old DMS, etc. And OMG why are you building a sensory THERE?! You're supposed to put it in the east vent! A TF, at alpha?!

MSD/MDS, a sensory chamber at hive 1 at all, where you put the chambers depends on how or if you want to defend the hive and a tf at all except for very certain circumstances leads to eject. Nice try though!

[Skyforger2]

2: since if one RT is knocked out that supplies power to others down the line it knocks them all out, it makes all rts much more valuable, and can destroy an entire area if it is taken down. so if the marines set up a little base outside of a hive to take it down, and one skulk runs to some rt between there and comm and takes it out, it completely powers down that expansion base and completely ruins the advance on that hive. this seems way overpowered for the aliens since marines can't afford to lose any rt. also, protecting rts is a tedious task, and making it such an integral part of the game would really detract from the the possible fun.

This is the whole point! The resource nodes will be tougher to kill to balance this out. Also, when a node is being hit, all the lights and things being affected by it will be flicking dramatically so you'll know very well it's under attack.

Now i get it ! but still i am concerned about how this all end up.

[KungFuSquirrel]

-I think the Map example doesn't seem to highlight the cool posibilities behind this mechanic. And thus hurts acceptance by community.

I actually agree; if I had known Charlie was going to use my topdown paint-filled layout so soon I'd have cleaned it up a bit! What you're seeing there is the first pass block-in interpretation of the layout "archetype" assembled on the left. We chose that particular archetype because we believed it to be one of the stronger ones created, and a "safe" one with which to develop the power grid system. It's messier than I'd like, even for as early as it is, but handles the important first-pass questions of timing/spacing, and if this system will even work, and can be rapidly updated and changed to work with the system as it develops.

When I put all the layout ideas together Charlie mentioned writing a dev blog covering their development... I think I'll put that together this weekend and see about getting it posted. Hopefully it'll help you guys see how the system applies to different layout styles.

[Jimyd]

I think you all may be forgetting one important thing in regards to this:

Aliens being able to knock out the resource grid but Marines can't, is this...

Marines have ranged weaponry and Aliens are cute and plushy and like to gnaw on your ankles mostly.

(The intent of that sentence, is that, Marines have the "upperhand" when played right.)

This post has been edited by Jimyd: Apr 11 2009, 11:22 PM

[Deadzone]

I actually agree; if I had known Charlie was going to use my topdown paint-filled layout so soon I'd have cleaned it up a bit! What you're seeing there is the first pass block-in interpretation of the layout "archetype" assembled on the left. We chose that particular archetype because we believed it to be one of the stronger ones created, and a "safe" one with which to develop the power grid system. It's messier than I'd like, even for as early as it is, but handles the important first-pass questions of timing/spacing, and if this system will even work, and can be rapidly updated and changed to work with the system as it develops.

When I put all the layout ideas together Charlie mentioned writing a dev blog covering their development... I think I'll put that together this weekend and see about getting it posted. Hopefully it'll help you guys see how the system applies to different layout styles.

Fair enough - I guess it just got taken as gospel once it was put in a news post. I'd be very interested in seeing some map layouts that you're thinking of.

Now that you talk about it as more of a test map for the power grid mechanic, though, I can kind of see what you mean. It's simple, covers all the features within the power grid system, and is fair balance-wise. (the balance being necessary to make sure the grid itself works fairly, I suppose) Makes me think of the test map for the original UT's multi-team CTF mod. Just 4 rooms in a square with each room having one hallway to all the others. But for testing, it worked.

[Flayra]

I guess the Ressource Towers that are not connected anymore after the loss of that "original" command chair are no longer powered until they are reconnected to the second one and if one hive dies ... the hive is dead and I guess the infestation retreats slowly from that area and some abilities or stuff that relies on it are deactivated.

Having some special buildings that do not need the power grid at all or having a portable power source (like others and myself suggested) would be crucial to make the gameplay more exciting I guess, but even without it this so called "restriction" makes the game much more interesting than it was before. If NS2 is fully packed with those nice new and intuitiv ideas I guess it will be very very veeeeery awesome I can't wait for another post like this to reveal some more stuff
Hm yeah thats kind of sad to remove those personal relocating, but I guess this way there is a much more intense fight over the "good" tech points and no "endless" searching for some hidden relocation ... And I guess the benefits overwhelm the bad sides

I'm not sure what you mean about "CC placements", but do you mean relocations? You can still relocate if you want, but you are limited to any place with a tech point.

[Flayra]

Remember that Siege Cannons are now mobile. While marines may lose their freedom to build a CC ANYWHERE, we now have the freedom of besieging locations without having to set up a forward outpost.

From the fact that only two "nodes" have both tech points and res nodes, it looks as though these are starting locations, and if there are only 2 on each map, that hardly seems dynamic.

The multiple commander concept will definitely need some further explaining.

Oops - yeah those two locations are the marine start and alien start locations. We support random start locations, but there is enough other work to do that right that I have a feeling that all of our v1.0 maps will have fixed starting locations.

I'll go into multiple commanders at some point but the takeaway is that the commander on both sides will be less about being a total authority and more about being a different character "class". I loved the leadership qualities of an authoritarian Commander in NS, but I believe that the overall game will be better if the role is designed to allow multiples to function together with stepping on each other's toes. I