NS2 Maps and Server Sizes
Nicksaerian
Join Date: 2008-10-15 Member: 65207Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2008-10-15 Member: 65207Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Square peg in round hole?</div>With NS2 comes new ways to map. Would it be a viable option to have maps made up rather easily to accommodate different server sizes? By that I mean one map, different sizes. If you run a large server, you'd use the large version of the map, a small server, the small version. I have no experience or knowledge in mapping which is why I'd like feedback on this! Thank ya much.
Comments
While it is a lot of work, the level designers at the company I work for made both a 16 and 32 player version of each map. While it did require a fair amount of extra work, it does really help when using smaller amounts of players. Basically, you need to figure out if the amount of people playing the smaller map is worth the effort. If 80% of people play the larger, and 20% the smaller, then it would probably be best to avoid using that time that way.
If they implemented this feature, the extra work done by the mapper shouldn't be mandatory but rather an optional feature.
Would be an interesting feature, but really there's no good reason why you simply wouldn't just load a map designed for more people at the end of another. That wouldn't take any special features from natural selection. If anything, the map would have to have a property in its header which gives a recommended max player amount which the server may choose to follow or not.
If they're going to do something like that, it needs to be dynamic so that new sections of the map can be made available dynamically (whether it be to accomodate a large player base or provide a triggered effect from within the map (perhaps a switch is activated and a third hive is made available for the aliens to put up for example).
Couldn't have been me because I kill the cap team/random pub cappers 30 seconds into the game.
Interesting... you would allow people to organically extend their understanding of a given map by going to a smaller server first, then expand to a bigger one where the strategy becomes more complex.
Ew.
From an optimization standpoint, this hurts. Loading the entire map when you might not even need it means longer load times and memory whoring. Also, dynamically altering the map as more players join or leave sounds good, but can get really sticky. What about players stuck as the map closes in?
I would suggest that there be a system that gauges team sizes as the map is loaded, and sets up the size it needs. Big, small, large, etc. However, it might come from the same base map, but the players and server now only need to load the parts they're going to use. As players join and leave during the round, the map doesn't expand or contract.
The big problem is designing maps like this. I'm sure we could learn, but adding more routes along the outside doesn't necessarily help. You also need interesting connections internally, maybe changing the vent systems, etc. The dependency on the balance of a smaller map altering the balance of the larger map could get very difficult to manage.
I would rather have a more static map, but the designer/server can setup available sizes and only play maps according to current server population. This may make redundancy if mappers want to make a huge maps, and cut it down to a medium and small size, but then each is a modular piece that doesn't depend on the larger map's design and balance and can be tweaked individually.
The downside is probably that its quite confusing to play on a changing map.
I was thinking this feature would be more generic in that it can be triggered by anything (including player size). Perhaps you could go as far to say that a similar trigger could close off areas of the map (imagine a gas leakage announcement by the computer and doors slowly shutting with sirens on either side where everybody in that region has to exit within 30 seconds time or risk getting closed in and promptly killed).
You could use it to prevent aliens from getting 3 hives if there are so few players, for example. You could use it to add strategic base locations for humans near certain hives (imagine having both in the same map, it would dramatically shift winds for the game play.. rather than aliens defending its two hives, it begins fighting a losing battle on one hive and then puts up a third hive, meanwhile humans are trying to siege an old hive due to a new strateigc positioning location).
Again, it's really about the mapper's wishes, because the mapper can also choose to make a normal map at that point without these features. I think it would add an interesting aspect to the game, as it breaks stalemates and keeps the map evolving. The triggers could come from other sources as well, which means a switch could activate new areas in the map which may or may not give an advantage to your team, for example.
Kool idea. I support. I just wouldn't support forcing mappers to make 3 versions and dynamically switch between them. Seems like more hassle than it's worth.
Though at the same time, I see a lot of potential in this idea for a complete change in gameplay flow. Keeps it interesting and breaks stalemates. A game which is looking bad for the Kharaa for being closed into one hive with siege cannons might suddenly gain a second exit which of course the Frontiersmen will try to block but will likely get overrun by desperate skulks, thus breaking the stalemate and allowing the Kharaa to counterattack the push by attacking the siege from both sides, for example.
I think a dynamic map would be an interesting concept, from locking off certain areas of the map until x numbers join, to simply having new resource nozzles activate as X members join. It could be an interesting feature, albeit I think optional would be the best way to attack it.
A drawback to all of these ideas is that there's no possible mystery to the location of the hive. You just follow the open route. Seeing as that didn't hurt the original NS when you could hear the hive, I don't think it's a huge loss.
A drawback to all of these ideas is that there's no possible mystery to the location of the hive. You just follow the open route. Seeing as that didn't hurt the original NS when you could hear the hive, I don't think it's a huge loss.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hm....
The point of weldables and such are to give an advantage to the Marines when the use it, or at least a calculated risk, but you're suggesting manually expanding the map because we want to. Or, at least that's my impression on a quick read.
So, intriguing, but I think this misses the core innovation of dynamic maps, especially due to team sizes. Perhaps adjust this so both sides can open new rooms near their starts, and some (in the middle) either auto open (enough other adjoining rooms open) or both sides can open. That way, you can try to keep a chokepoint and turtle by pushing res into opening new rooms, but open the wrong room or the other team opens a careful room and suddenly you're flanked and overextended. It would take quite a bit of tweaking, and I don't really like it myself, but maybe someone else can make this idea more interesting.
So, intriguing, but I think this misses the core innovation of dynamic maps, especially due to team sizes. Perhaps adjust this so both sides can open new rooms near their starts, and some (in the middle) either auto open (enough other adjoining rooms open) or both sides can open. That way, you can try to keep a chokepoint and turtle by pushing res into opening new rooms, but open the wrong room or the other team opens a careful room and suddenly you're flanked and overextended. It would take quite a bit of tweaking, and I don't really like it myself, but maybe someone else can make this idea more interesting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know, this seems more like the epitome of dynamic maps to me. It also allows for a different style of play with small games. However I do see a potential balance problems with suddenly opening up large areas of a map through one choke point, especially if kharaa are allowed to open up maps the map as well. Skulks/gorges could open up a bunch of rooms and quickly cap(since that what kharaa are good at).
If the kharaa remain fast(which seems likely since they are melee) then this will be true.
We know very little about the res division, DI spread and such. Those can limit the capping even if the mobility is still there.
Something I realized just now is this can promote essential neutraling.
The idea is you're initially isolated and you have to make decisions without knowing what your opponent is doing. This setup time can be extended by things like large map size or hostile to everyone creatures like in the Civilization games. StarCraft also has a similar quiet time until you start scouting the enemy base. NS1 has a fairly short run out and contact time period, usually within 30s the enemy sees each other.
However, with the majority of the map locked down, you have to make strategic choices on what rooms to open. Even more interesting, the opposing team might not know which rooms you've opened. You guys could miss each other if a connecting hallway wasn't opened up. This additional separation and slower exploration of the map slows down the initial firefighting, but can help give a little more depth to the strategy side of the game. Also, every room you open is opened for the other team. So, if you wasted your time opening all the rooms, the other team might only have to open one doorway to get to all those rooms you worked so hard to open.
This would be even more interesting if you had to unlock Hive rooms. So, the Aliens have to unlock the Hives, but what if the Marines unlock rush a certain Hive? Should the Aliens rush it since it's open? Or should they move around to another Hive? Ideally this wouldn't cost huge chunks of res (maybe no res and just time), so by unlocking one Hive you haven't excluded yourself from switching and unlocking the other Hive.
Absent that sort of sizing, I would go with large size on everything, as someone suggested earlier in the thread. Adds to the atmosphere, IMO.
It would also allow a combat mode to be coded in LUA using the original maps, encouraging adoption as custom map downloads can be discouraging to new players. Again, each round could be a different configuration, possibly even indirect routes to the hive.
Oh, I realized that's not what you meant. It was just a random idea that popped into my head. It would definitely slow down really gameplay, which may or may not be a good thing. Good so that strategies have more time to diverge, bad in that we don't get to shoot things until we open all those blasted doors.
The dynamic direct way to Hive is interesting. However, something I liked about NS1 was searching for the Hive. Granted it was a short wait, but any variability can really help. If you only have the path to the starting Hive, this element of exploration is gone, even if it only lasted 30 seconds (yay listening for spawns and Gorges as comm). I would prefer all major routes to be open to all the Hives. Maybe even close the Hive itself, but the pathway is open.
What I'm thinking if you want a skeleton map, especially for smaller games, that could be opened up. As much as I love dynamic maps, I have to ask the question of why. What advantage does opening up these extra rooms give? I will admit that we need more ways to manipulate the map, including based on team sizes as a trigger, but I'm not entirely sold on extension rooms when the main map should be sufficient. Unless say all but 3 nodes are in these locked down rooms. That would be interesting.
Just another two cents I'm tossing in. Love to hear feedback on it!