Basic idea, have preset moments or events in maps that are not under, but potentially triggered or affected by the players, making the map it's own entity and you're just a tiny cog in a vast, still working site.

Personal take:
I think it's a fun idea. Similar to this thread: http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=104438

The idea of the map interacting with the players is kinda cool. I would just advise it doesn't become a hazard course for players. I'm sure the mappers can think up interesting ways to deal with this and implement them if they'd like.

Since some of these options (damage dealing triggers) already existed in HL1, but weren't incorporated in NS maps, I'm a little tenuous on the idea. While having certain rooms do interesting things is fun, if those events take priority over the players shaping the map to their own strategy (flank here, setup outpost here) then it's a loss. The fun part of the RTS element is you're given a field to battle on, but how you do it is up to you.

I can imagine an extreme case where the map becomes more of an obstacle survival course than a NS map.

However, intriguing idea nonetheless.

It make thing much more complicated to balance the map.
My opnion it that it can only work if you can disable it:
For strategic purposes, for avoiding abuse...

Welding point, damage a pipeline, can do the trick.

Maybee 1 welded thing can be disabled by Aliens, just to make the place a spot that have some importance. One way things leads to imbalance. Switches can make it ok. But still hard to balance.

I don't think we'll see something like that in the first version of NS2.
Having a better NS1 is already some work.
And when you try to ship a game you have to manage the project in order to keep things on schedule.
It's not about programmation but about balance. it takes huges time compared to code.

The two big cons that jump out when I look at this are an increase in difficulty for balancing playtesting and a increased labor required to produce maps. However, the degree whether this is at all significant enough to care (offset the cons) could vary widely in the extreme depending on how this is implemented, specifically. In fact, neither con is per se against or going to kill this idea, but it we should be aware of it.

With that said, maps with life are something I've supported since it was mentioned by myself and others for a long time going back to discussions about the aerial mycellium which lead to Mouse's suggestion (yes, the guy who now leads the moderators with Comprox) about the hives being alive with NPC (which are now part of the concept art that people are temporarily calling "glowies"). Furthermore, if you look at my texture and prop requests for the NS2TR (the stickied/webbed thread) I keep asking for natural things and water.

There was even a thread somewhere in one of the two I&S which I distinctly remember talking about areas of the map that are open/closed depending on the server population. (one of those countless 'balance' threads)

This topic reminds me of all those things which were many good ideas, it was just a question of scope, with making the connect between volunteer labor, mapping, and the engine.

In short, I'm feeling this topic as presented is too generic to be an action-plan, implementable idea; yet, too specific to be an overall design priority suggestion. If I may spellman23, my opinion is to focus the direction of this thread towards one or the other and give historical creedence to threads of past years that are leading towards your vision & objective for this topic.


For the record I support higher entropy in gaming. More choices, tactical versatility, more paths & options... allowing a player's and a team's creative problem-solving to shine in a fun and interactive way. That means I'm predisposed to support the gist of this idea, even though it could use some clarity.

heh, don't look at me to defend/focus the direction of this idea. I just moved it from another post.

I do see the point made by the x_5 though. I just haven't been around quite as long to pick up on all those older references. The scale and specifics on how it's implemented are paramount to how well this works, not to mention the hellish issue it could make balancing a map. Being a noob mapper, I know how difficult it is just to make a basic map with all the details and ambiance that you imagine in your head, and molding the balance of the game into the way the map flows.

Hey thought I'd chime in since it was me who brought this up.
I think you over-thought the idea(s) a little in respect to the game-play balance issues, it was a whimsical ponder of mine upon seeing the concept art works that perhaps the levels can have even more 'character' added to them by not just their art-style, but by their over-all 'theme'...

I made up a couple of kooky scenarios which you might find in a map with the characters of a refinery or bio-station, and was giving a platform to discuss the idea of perhaps including some cool map-specific characterizing elements which also help to make the maps feel more alive.

The elements don't necessarily have to be gameplay-altering, or have an impact on strategy (although, using one's terrain to their advantage - I feel - is a HUGE part of being a successful RTS'er) but they can just be there to add character, perhaps like a bunch of carniverous plants on show, doing something fun/intriguing on the bio-level.

Something almost, or fully interactaive, perhaps...

----

as a bootnote... who says that a fight between a technologically evolved race, and a predatory sub-technological race should be totally "balanced" ?

Dynamic mapping isn't a game-specific thing; it's a matter of skill and ingenuity on the part of the level designer. It exists in NS in the form of weldables and hive points, as well as relocations - but I personally find these things insufficient.

I would like to see more dynamics in maps, more options available to the players, but it's a fine line to walk before the map becomes a chore to play around (Brawl does this) so like I said, it really just comes down to developer skill and willingness to break out of the accepted way of doing things in first-person games.



It also takes more time and effort to make something ingenious than to slap 4 brushes on a room and add a pretty texture.

A map that "alive" should not hinder nor help a player in a major game changing way, they should only be there for random events that maybe, maybe would determine of the outcome of a small battle of little importance. They shoulden't make you lose the game right there and then.

-to answer the idea of A coolent room that would kill any players inside, i have a few questions, what is the benefit of this? what is the advantage it provides to you? would this upset the tide of the game in your favor? these are thing you rarely think about when playing, but if you ever go back to look at the map your might decide that a death trap every 30 seconds would, frankly F*** up any game you have here.

However I would rather enjoy a living breathing map, just not on a scale of death traps or game altering random events, it seems that if you can have a (game altering event here) win the game or turn the game in your favor where's the skill? Seems more like luck to me.

If a balane could be made I would gladly accept this change in pace of tradition map making.

Rereading your post, I think you're referring to cosmetic mapping changes while I was referring to gameplay that the players would interact with to give them advantages based on the environment.

Although you're wrong about small battles not mattering - all battles matter *a lot* - this is because of the accretional way Advantage is built in a strategy game, due to the opportunity cost of taking one objective over another.

You should definitely allow major changes to happen to the game based on players' actions:

For example - when a player can weld into Satcom, it means they've got control of a situaiton, and they're dynamically modifying the gamestate by their choice of actions- it's like in how Fable is designed, your actions have consequences. In a multiplayer game it's much more difficult to implement a system that accomplishes that level of dyanmism but it's genuinely worth it.

Definitely let major map events be triggered by players - but make them earn it.

Agreed. Also, may I suggest that a 'event' could be flipped back the other way in some way?

Weld points were just one way, I would appreciate it if it made sense to a event that it could be turned back to a previous or another state that favors their intentions.

This could be as simple as the lights being turned off or on, as complex as needing to take the time to weld a component, say a gear, back into place to have a generator function again that powers a blast door or something, but that generator could be damaged again, rendering what it was powering inoperable.

Ok, I think the focus has been lost by light-footed dancing around the whole perception of how gameplay works.
As long as you have a functioning brain, there's ways around everything... apart from sheer numbers, there's always a solution to winning, you just have to strategise harder!

It's fine having weldable, player-triggered or commander-operated functions in a map, but what I was trying to suggest was that the creators of the map give some, perhaps not all, but some of the maps a distinct element which is not controllable, yet is exploitable or detrimental, by or to the players.
So what? so you strategize how best to use, abuse or avoid said element, push the enemy into a pitfall, while trying to avoid it yerself... do something clever, or innovative and totally reverse the outcome of a game.

Why do people have the preconception that because you are winning, it should be incredibly difficult for you to lose?

In Chess ( the most well known, and well 'balanced' war game ever ), you can lose in 4 moves,
you can play a great game of back and forth yet lose marginally,
you can be winning for the whole game but lose in an instant because you didn't pay attention
you can be at a huge deficit and come back with one sneaky move

Adding elements which allow players to innovatively use their surroundings is a major step forward in my opinion, a step away from the age old 'rooms, hallways... fight." deal we've been so used to, remember there is supposed to be a complex RTS element to the game, it isn't just a battle of fastest trigger finger

---


as a bootnote, I think people have heard the comment "it's not balanced" too many times and jump on anything new or unusual with a sweeping "balance" jibe to fail it before it gets far enough to have to be subject to a proper test... this is in light of reading alot of ideas&suggestions threads

Like a minotaur in a maze?

Aw... that poor minotaur.....



I must admit there is a tendency for people to err on the side of caution. However, this is coming from several people who have dealt with and thought over gameplay and balance issues. As much as I like interesting features, if they compromise ease of gameplay or increase the production time too much due to time dedicated balance, then I probably will vote against it. I'm also a fan of players developing the game with the tools provided, not stifling them with strict hard counters or minutely specific optimizations. So, yes many ideas get ground under foot, but if you give them a good shake and defend your position well, then you might get some converts.


Back to the topic on hand, distinct events are interesting. I wouldn't throw in an event just to do it, but something like a trash compactor would be an interesting element. Be sure it doesn't become a ns_bast revolving door of death.

I think the reason most unique elements like that eventually got pruned out of NS1 is ease of mapping and the fact that players don't like a hostile environment. They like a setting to do battle. Perhaps if NS2 is themed more in the idea that the world is much more organic, it will work much better in the style. However, NS1 focused more on two sides clashing with customization due to player actions, like buildings or welding.

Also agreed -- to scale as well. (meaning more effort is required if the impact of the event will be larger)

If this topic is shifting to player triggered events (i.e.: like the mentioned "welding into SatComm") then that is something you'll find I have a lot of support for. Plus, it's just fun. It gives the maps some alternate solutions and something else to do. Possible uses for clever comeback assaults or ways to circumvent a bloody, chaotic stalemate. Thus merging one of on the timeless aspects of good RTS games in an FPS: tactical versatility.

I think the point was very obviously missed.
If players are working on triggering major events then it turns into a goal-orientated map.

I was proposing some small, self-contained, strategy altering/enhancing elements which would make the 'world' seem alive, functioning... etc.
Not world-altering triggered events that require a lot of work to achieve!!!!!!!

Hell, the "alive" elements don't even have to alter the gameplay at all... but when you interact with the map, it would feel like it is more than just a battleground

but the suggestion seems lost in a mulch of objective-triggering madness

Yes, but the objective-triggering madness can be a lot of fun and lead to some clever strategies if designed well!

No, I will not play a map with laser grids in each room that get turned on and off by a button/welder/dmg/heal spray.

What the heck are you thinking of? lol!

I'm talking about things that fit in with the gameplay, not silly mini-games. Leave the NS-Tetris or NS-Chess mini-games for the ready room -- or the gift shop for that matter. Hmm... That reminds me, what ever happened to that one member who was going to make an mass order for plush gorgies?