*OFFICIAL* ns_ maps question

HairyPomegranate

There are tons of custom ns_ style maps with the same gameplay as the official ns_ maps, but they almost never get into the mainstream ns_ community. Is there a certain thing you look for when you pick out maps? I know most people don't enjoy playing the 2 new classic maps provided in the new version of ns_, though they became official...

Thanks for the info ahead of time

StixNStonz

You know, if someone made an official-level quality Siege map, maybe they'd actually consider it. I'm all Ns Classic, but the rare Siege or even Stargate I play seems like it could use a ton of overall upgrades.

puzl

I don't think we'd even consider it Stix. That style of play is best left to the custom community. To this day, I still don't understand why Big Game Hunting is so popular. I personally do not enjoy siege maps or extralevels combat. I played some extra levels 3 with structures and all kinds of stuff last night and the game is unrecognizable as NS. The closest thing resembling conflict in it is 10 players charging at each other firing at random hoping for kills in the middle of 20-30 grenades simultaneously exploding. I appreciate that this is what many people enjoy, but I don't, and we on the NS team have always striven to design the type of game we like to play.

As for the official maps in NS 3.2. Lucid is extremely popular on the servers I visit, and although NS Machina isn't played as much, that map was included for it's style and technology as much as for its playability. I personally really enjoy to play the map, and it is disappointing that the community hasn't embraced it as eagerly as we did.

The other thing that you have to realise is that NS 3.2 was developed during the long forum downtime, so we were sort of restricted in how we solicited new content. The mappers that were already part of the development community got their maps in. We tried to get a popular map from the custom scene into NS 3.2 also, but some problems got in the way and the source for the map was lost just before we released 3.2. ( The map in question was ns_prometheus ).

At this very late stage in the lifecycle of NS, we don't think it makes sense to release a client update. So projects like the Unofficial Map Pack are the best avenue to showcase your custom content now.

HatlabuFarkas

When we plays CS 1.6 in <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=103899&pid=1671990&st=0&#entry1671990" target="_blank">NS LAN party</a> we plays FY_pool_Day.bsp , and we thinking about the BASIC, and of course OFFICIAL fun map for NS, like the FY_POOL_DAY for the CS.

What do ya think guys ? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />

Po0L map for NS ? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />

go0d, or BAD idea ? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />

puzl

I think that is called NS Combat.

StixNStonz

Agreed.

First off, I avoid combat and siege as much as I can. If there's literally no room in the Classic servers, I might join one to pass the time, etc.

But the concept and appeal of Siege is in some ways understandable:

The <u>concept</u> is simply that each team is given a ton of res, and given a few minutes to tech up. Hence the game begins with an epic battle right from the start... even if the start is 5 mins in.

The <u>appeal</u> is simply that; being able to have all the res you want, but without the disaster you would cause from whoring for fade and dying instantly in NS classic.




I think that this could actually be put into an official-esque map. Picture a big map with lots of ambience, but actually proportional rooms (normal siege maps are all ridiculously open and empty, with random walls and blocks for cover). Most rooms would probably be about Cargo (tanith) size, since you'd need all that space for the huge battles. Give each team a ton of res, and make some huge chokepoint with a door; it could even be a Stronghold of the marines, etc.

So perhaps the marines are in this massive base. They have 10ish nodes. Aliens have all the area outside of the base, and generally dont walk into the spray of the fire from the windows (which are too small to enter). Perhaps add in some semi-secret entrances to the base.

Then either make the door timed, or lets the marines choose to open it. Once its open, it stays open; maybe multiple doors open all at the same time. But this would signal the beginning of the real battle. Maybe even make the button available at 2 mins, and forced open at 5 mins, etc, giving marines the choice of how long to tech (though 6 mins is about the minimum for a good amount of proto tech in the field).



Or, you could even support this kind of gameplay with actual code. Make the 'siege map type' perhaps se_, start where the (necessary for gametype) door opens at 1 min: but

-the aliens all have 75 res or even 100;
-they have 2 hives (third could be dropped right away);
-marines have 10 uncapped nodes, aliens have 10 uncapped nodes
-all structures build in half the time for the 'pre-game minute'
-all marine techs are instant for pre-game minute (comm drops armory, marines build it, comm clicks AA, its done instantly)
-marines have 600 res (could be changed obviously, thats just ballpark, from:)
*** 150[10 nodes] + 40[2ips] + 45[armory arms obs] + 60[AA PGtech PG] + 100[A2 D2] + 80[proto and 1 tech] + 125[any equipment] = 600 res spent in one intense Comm Minute
-door opens at 1 min

Mixed with a 'proper' siege map, this could turn out pretty damn awesome. This would remove the annoying waste of 5/6 minutes before the siege door opens, and get right to the epic battle. Heck, you could even make a TF2-like map where the layout changes between rounds. Its actually very easy to do as a mapper, but the minimap would be an issue (which could be resolved with code and multiple minimaps).

Anyways, this should probably be put in the I&S with its own thread, but oh well.

Thoughts?

-Stix

Crispy

My thoughts are: you will probably be able to experiment with that idea to your heart's content via some LUA modifications when NS2 is out. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />

To the OP, the time has passed for making NS maps purely because you want it to have a chance at going official. However, if you want to learn how to design a map well for NS, your experience will probably not be wasted if you were looking to make an NS2 map. You'll certainly improve in simply using Hammer for the basics (brushwork, optimisation, lighting), and you will also learn more about what makes a multiplayer map balanced if you try to get a community to test the map alongside of (re)development.

StixNStonz

Mapping is also all about the fundamentals. The differences between HL1 and Source are all in the toys; almost unlimited draw specs, easy tools like displacements, awesome ambient tools like props, 3d skyboxes and hundreds of effects.

But mapping all comes down to the brushwork. And frankly, I'm extremely happy that I went from Source to HL1 to learn 'restriction' and fundamentals. Now I can go back to Source and <u>own</u> the engine.

JazzX

As to the original question, I played a major role in Map selection since around 3.0 and these were the main things I would look at:

- Aesthetic style: We already have contributions from some insanely talented mappers, many of whom have gone on to do commercial game development work. As such the map had to look good to fit in with the other maps we had. That said maps with solid gameplay but were kind of 'eh' in terms of looks usually would be brought in, and then the mappers we'd already have would help give suggestions to polish things up.

- Layout (Nodes, Hives, CC): Beyond just following the Mapping Guidelines I always looked at the layout of the map both from a macro (minimap) and micro (walking around) perspective. There needed to be spaces where you would see conflict between the teams, as well as good pacing between nodes, and hives.

- A willingness for the mapper to make changes: Every map I've been involved with has gone through at least a dozen major/semi-major changes during the playtest process. Some mappers had no desire to change their map, and while that's understandable, it usually marked the end of their candidacy for going official.