Camera idea sounds great. It actually makes some level-over-level play more possible. I'm not talking about floors above floors, but it makes it easier to have walkways and balcony sections over areas below because you don't have to gear the whole level's commander height around this one area.
Secondly, it also makes equidistant Hive level concepts like the one below (also seen in ns_nexus) more possible.
<!--quoteo(post=1672663:date=Mar 9 2008, 05:35 AM:name=naggy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(naggy @ Mar 9 2008, 05:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1672663"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not entirely sure if the whole 'automatic camera' thing will work TBH.. A pretty fun mod called Zombie Master (<a href="http://www.zombiemaster.org/" target="_blank">http://www.zombiemaster.org/</a>) - which is also a RTS/FPS - uses a system where its similar to spectator mode, but you use the mouse wheel to move up and down amongst the environment and use a bound button to initiate freelook mode to set the camera up the way you want it. You then use wsad buttons to move around at your desired level of height. It works surprisingly well with multi-leveled maps (which most are) and Isn't 'that' hard to learn to use.
Whats so good about it is that it gives you freedom to observe every nook and cranny of the map, be it vents, hallways, sewers, inside houses, etc.
Grats btw.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->ZM doesn't have the same level of micromanagement as NS does. The Master in ZM only has to give spawn, waypoint and attack orders to the troops. In NS there is research, waypointing, structure dropping, item dropping, 'spellcasting', etc. - I don't personally want to have to use too many buttons and too much attention to move the camera around the level in order to perform the primary functions.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited March 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1672579:date=Mar 8 2008, 08:02 AM:name=Sinister)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sinister @ Mar 8 2008, 08:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1672579"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When you started to talk about the commander view, I first thought you were going for an isometric perspective. That way nothing would be too close or too far away. However, making the world appear "flat" to the commander might take away from the experience, and would make the level-over-level situation even worse. Also it might make commander mode feel more like an oldschool 2D rts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> When you have an isometric view it's more likely your vision will be partially blocked by vertical walls/doodads. With an overhead view the only thing that could block your view is an overhang. It sounds like the commander view will look a lot like it does now, and that doesn't look 2D to me. Also, the devs haven't said anything about level over level, but if they did implement it they would have to make the above levels transparent because the commander needs to have a fairly high up perspective of the map. I don't really see how isometric is better vs. straight down in terms of level-over-level. <!--quoteo(post=1672668:date=Mar 9 2008, 02:59 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Mar 9 2008, 02:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1672668"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think the manual zooming would be much of a burden, but many seem to be overtasked in basic comming, so whatever suits the game. Anything goes as long as it feels quick and reliable. Almost everything in the ns feels like its in your exact control, I'd hate to lose that in ns2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> When I started listening to the podcast I thought the devs were going to go with a controllable camera because that's what all 3D RTS do and had started rationalizing the decision in my head. After they stated they had a fixed position I gave it some thought and realized that this decision had to do with giving the player the best option and not having him/her choose his/her preference. Any benefit of changing the camera view would be negated with the time spent fighting with it when the comm needed to move somewhere else. Instead of forcing a player to memorize the "best camera views" on a map that stuff is all ready preset. This allows a player to focus on what is really important: the strategy of the other team. If a player is messing with the camera they're fighting the game and not his/her opponent and by removing these obstacles they're setting the stage to add real depth to the game. That's why I said they were taking the time to do this "right".
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's how it works.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hints on the floor are concerning considering some areas have high ceilings. It would be difficult to target jet-packing marines, for example, if the current height variable was too low. If you really wanted to have a variable for camera height consistency, you'd need a corresponding ceiling camera hint along with the floor hint. It doesn't seem worth it.
I'd like to see it give the mapper as much or as little control as he wants. So, camera hints would be the exact position the commander camera would be. He could put in a single camera hint and it would act as in NS1. Or he could put in 2 or more camera hints and it would interpolate camera position over space. It would probably be better if hint brushes were used instead of points. This way it would be easier to create flat camera planes and it'd only interpolate where planes didn't exist. (I'm not so sure about time interpolation for the reasons discussed... I can see intelligent hint placement as a better solution)
<!--quoteo(post=1672814:date=Mar 10 2008, 09:51 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Mar 10 2008, 09:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1672814"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...realized that this decision had to do with giving the player the best option and not having him/her choose his/her preference. Any benefit of changing the camera view would be negated with the time spent fighting with it when the comm needed to move somewhere else.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I still think that 3 rolls of mwheel downward should zoom out to give you a view of the whole picture, SupCom style. You can then put your mouse somewhere and roll the wheel forward to zoom back. That way I won't be forced to center the screen on players I want to ignore if I choose so.
So does this mean that the next time somebody catches me playing 'the Sims" (copyright *happy Panda*) 2, I can say "But, nah, I'm pracc. Commin fo reeal". HA HA HA
<!--quoteo(post=1672905:date=Mar 11 2008, 06:14 AM:name=Domining)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Domining @ Mar 11 2008, 06:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1672905"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I still think that 3 rolls of mwheel downward should zoom out to give you a view of the whole picture, SupCom style. You can then put your mouse somewhere and roll the wheel forward to zoom back. That way I won't be forced to center the screen on players I want to ignore if I choose so.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->We tried a zoomable Commander view in Nuclear Dawn. Although we got it working, it does really chug when you're fully zoomed out, and that's even with 3 sets of LODs per model.
I think it would require LODs for the map textures as well if you really wanted it to work. But I have to say I think the NS2 implementation sounds like the best choice.
So basically still no "multistory" maps and the comm still has to move the cursor to the minimap or edge of the screen like its 1996, and there is more work for the mappers doing boring things like setting camera elevation rather than thinking up innovative designs. I would much rather have a completely blue 3d "blueprint" of the level that I could move around in as comm instead of being stuck with the horrible GUI interfaces from 10 years ago and it would feel more immsersive anyway and increase the tension.
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><i>If you want us to pay attention to your ideas I'd suggest you propose them in a way that doesn't give us the impression that you're just letting off steam. -- J!</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Wouldn't it take less processing power to just give the mappers an in-game 'invisible' surface plane that they could add in the editor. This would be a horizontal plane of any size that would fill the entire length+width of the room and is X units above the average floor height. The mapper would place these in every room and in game you would have the Commanders camera stay X units above that plane. When the camera's height hits a plane of another height it would ease into the new height at a certain speed. Of course I don't map for either Half-Life engine so I don't know if this would be frustrating or not or if you can toggle the visibility of BSP in the editor, but I would think that it would reduce processing power.
<!--quoteo(post=1672965:date=Mar 11 2008, 11:28 PM:name=Hyperion)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hyperion @ Mar 11 2008, 11:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1672965"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...and there is more work for the mappers doing boring things like setting camera elevation rather than thinking up innovative designs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I personally will prefer having more control over this aspect. At least it will allow you to use the Z-axis more than you could in NS.
schkorpioI can mspaintJoin Date: 2003-05-23Member: 16635Members
<!--quoteo(post=1672965:date=Mar 12 2008, 09:28 AM:name=Hyperion)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hyperion @ Mar 12 2008, 09:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1672965"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->and there is more work for the mappers doing boring things like setting camera elevation rather than thinking up innovative designs. J![/i][/color]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well actually as stated in the podcast, the camera elevation will more innovative designs. besides i'm sure there will be a sweet spot for the camera in most situations, except for when you want do to something special
Soul_RiderMod BeanJoin Date: 2004-06-19Member: 29388Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
So I take it that full on level over level play is out still in NS2.
As the camera wouldn't be able to sense the height changes accurately.
Can you implement a system where you can have 2 or more cameras over each other at different heights, and the com can switch between them for different levels. Players could have a level colour associated with their glow for ease of recognition as to which level he needs to zoom to.
Clicking on the player after a call would obviously zoom into the player on the right level.
I like what these guys bring up: <!--quoteo(post=1672970:date=Mar 12 2008, 09:06 AM:name=Dalin Seivewright)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dalin Seivewright @ Mar 12 2008, 09:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1672970"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wouldn't it take less processing power to just give the mappers an in-game 'invisible' surface plane that they could add in the editor. This would be a horizontal plane of any size that would fill the entire length+width of the room and is X units above the average floor height. The mapper would place these in every room and in game you would have the Commanders camera stay X units above that plane. When the camera's height hits a plane of another height it would ease into the new height at a certain speed. Of course I don't map for either Half-Life engine so I don't know if this would be frustrating or not or if you can toggle the visibility of BSP in the editor, but I would think that it would reduce processing power.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1673074:date=Mar 13 2008, 07:38 AM:name=Soul_Rider)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Soul_Rider @ Mar 13 2008, 07:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673074"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So I take it that full on level over level play is out still in NS2.
As the camera wouldn't be able to sense the height changes accurately.
Can you implement a system where you can have 2 or more cameras over each other at different heights, and the com can switch between them for different levels. Players could have a level colour associated with their glow for ease of recognition as to which level he needs to zoom to.
Clicking on the player after a call would obviously zoom into the player on the right level.
Just an idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Restrictions aren't always negative. A lot of the time having a few restrictions forces you to be more imaginative. Look at how Merkaba downright abused the Half-Life engine to its very core to get the effect you see in the ns_machina readyroom.
Dalin Seivewright's suggestion about planes would make it fairly tiresome for the mapper, since you'd have to manually create a shape for the floor above which you would want the comm to hover. It wouldn't always be best to just copy and paste the floor shape if you have overhanging details. Having a simple point entity that you put near the centre sounds like a restriction, but it would lead to much faster prototyping and it will become intuitive after a while where roughly these cameras need to go, if not in the centre of the room.
If you based it on the floorplan, you'd have to change the Commander view settings every time you changed the floor layout of a room, which is fiddly and annoying.
There's nothing amazing about multiple-level maps anyway. As a player, you're only going to be on one floor at a time, so it's doesn't really affect you. In fact, the only thing it affects is the Commander; he just has to put a lot more effort into navigating the map.
Their proposed solution isn't to allow level over level combat, it's to allow more variety in map height. For example, you could get on an elevator and go deep down into the depths of a map, and the Commander won't have to zoom in to follow your progress; his view will automatically compensate for the change in height by automatically zooming in or out.
No manual zooming required by the Commander, so he can focus on doing his job, not on manipulating fiddly view controls.
<!--quoteo(post=1672554:date=Mar 8 2008, 04:05 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Mar 8 2008, 04:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1672554"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><i>Nope, we won't be supporting multiple levels. It's just that the commander camera is no longer restricted to a single height, so as you pan around the map, it's moving up and down automatically. -- Charlie</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1672598:date=Mar 8 2008, 05:14 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Mar 8 2008, 05:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1672598"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Are you considering implementing "levels", ie. if there are two conflicting hints at one location on the x/y axis (where x and y are non-height dimensions) the mapper could determine which hints link to which in what order (similar to a rope entity, so that the flat plane can bend back on itself intelligently)? If you did that, the commander could "toggle" between layers, which would allow a mapper to build level geometry that overlapped itself on the z-axis.
Maybe you answered that already in the podcast? I don't remember hearing anything about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's silly not having a multi-level camera views implemented. Even if they are restricted to only one level over another, it will still give mappers a million more options and make spaces a billion times more exciting to play in. We could finally have realistic feeling maps where one corridor runs above another. And a room could be over another room. A map could have an over ground level, and then tunnels that run down into the core of a planet. How hard can it be, it's surely been done on another games, right? It would just be a case of having 2 sets of view planes that can be scrolled through with -/+ or 2 buttons on the commander hub.
To my mind the more options you give a commander on how he/she can view the map, the better. And if new players get confused about where they are or where they are looking, just have a default view button. This would just take them to a set view above where they are, looking down. That way, no matter what crazy view points you implement a commander can always get back to a normal view.
Don't presume that all your players are the lowest common denominator, because even the bottom of the barrel can learn to climb out. In fact it would be nice, for once, to hear about a developer who thought his target audience had a brain rather than the constant line: “we took X out because a play tester didn’t get it in the first 2 seconds of playingâ€. Half the fun of playing games is learning how to play them, if it’s all to easy then where is the fun?
Sorry guys that isn’t exactly directed at you, more at games generally feeling like they are being dumbed down so much, that they become “easy for everyone to play†(as you almost always hear developers saying) and get dull really quickly (which you don’t hear them say). So I say, more options, more time, more fun <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Because, lets be honest, if I’m going to pay £20-£40 on a game, I want it to last, and be worth it.
So if it takes me a few more hours to master a commander viewing system, but means I have a far more interesting map to play over, then I would happily choose the interesting multi level map and longer learning time over a really easy viewing system and an average map.
Please put in the option for multi-level maps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Luv you guys <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> Great pod cast! Keep up the good work <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<b>EDIT:</b>
<!--quoteo(post=1673157:date=Mar 13 2008, 09:05 PM:name=PogoP)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PogoP @ Mar 13 2008, 09:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673157"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Their proposed solution isn't to allow level over level combat, it's to allow more variety in map height. For example, you could get on an elevator and go deep down into the depths of a map, and the Commander won't have to zoom in to follow your progress; his view will automatically compensate for the change in height by automatically zooming in or out.
No manual zooming required by the Commander, so he can focus on doing his job, not on manipulating fiddly view controls.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What would happen if you were on an elevator going deep down, would the field of view jump to the bottom, stay at the top, or be able to follow the elevator down? If it’s not the last option or a mix of all 3, then it will kind of suck. Because you will have the same issues that NS has. Not being able to see what you need to see. As a commander if an elevator goes too deep then you will be stuck looking at little dots of marines, or waiting for the elevator to come all the way down so you can see your marines. And while you wait they might get eaten.
This is where multiple level viewing could be really useful. Allowing a mapper to break up a long elevator shaft into different levels, without worrying how a commander will view their troops. It would also mean that players who wanted to make maps that revolved around deep mine shafts or deep tunnels could make these maps without worrying if one room over laps another.
Say for example if you had a map on a moon, where a missile silo was situated. Maybe the whole map is positioned around interplanetary missiles. And the marines start at the top and the hives are below them. They could work their way down around the missile along walk ways and down elevator shafts. None of which can be positions above one another according to the current plans, which means you would not be able to get the same depth of game play. Something as simple as an elevator that goes between two floors isn’t possible unless a player exits the elevator from the opposite way they came in. Which in the real world, rarely happens.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nope, we won't be supporting multiple levels. It's just that the commander camera is no longer restricted to a single height, so as you pan around the map, it's moving up and down automatically. -- Charlie<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow I didn't see that, but okay... that's pretty much settled then. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
The way I read that is that there is nothing in the engine to stop a mapmaker from making level-over-level maps, except the knowledge that the Commander won't be able to easily see both levels at the same time. So having two rooms in the same X-Y position would be bad, but you could have a small amount of overlap without annoying the commander too much -- he would solve that the way he does currently by just placing the camera off to the side a bit, so he can see in at an angle.
I could totally see something like a lower level having a narrow corridor that runs underneath a perpendicular corridor in an upper level, so for a few inches of gameplay space there is level-over-level but in most of the space you are only looking at one level at a time. That allows the mapmaker to make more complete use of 3-D space in his designing while still giving the commander a decently intuitive view.
La ChupacabraJoin Date: 2008-02-25Member: 63729Members
<!--quoteo(post=1673217:date=Mar 14 2008, 03:47 PM:name=INKEDOUT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(INKEDOUT @ Mar 14 2008, 03:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673217"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What would happen if you were on an elevator going deep down, would the field of view jump to the bottom, stay at the top, or be able to follow the elevator down? If it’s not the last option or a mix of all 3, then it will kind of suck.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I haven't made a single map for HL2, but from what I have heard about the changes they made in contrast to HL1 map-making is that a single object can have more than one function, for instance - in HL2 you can make a door with a glass window in it that can break - in HL1 you could make a door, or a breakable entity, not both.
If you follow that logic than It should be possible to make an elevator and link it with the height-map-entity, which would work as you described in the 3 option... in theory... it would be good if a HL2 mapper could confirm that!
<!--quoteo(post=1673234:date=Mar 14 2008, 06:29 PM:name=La Chupacabra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(La Chupacabra @ Mar 14 2008, 06:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673234"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I haven't made a single map for HL2, but from what I have heard about the changes they made in contrast to HL1 map-making is that a single object can have more than one function, for instance - in HL2 you can make a door with a glass window in it that can break - in HL1 you could make a door, or a breakable entity, not both.
If you follow that logic than It should be possible to make an elevator and link it with the height-map-entity, which would work as you described in the 3 option... in theory... it would be good if a HL2 mapper could confirm that!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes in theory you can do all 3 options. In theory you can also have multi-level/room above room commander view, but this doesn't mean they are going to do it... ...which makes me cry :'(
<!--quoteo(post=1673229:date=Mar 14 2008, 05:57 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Mar 14 2008, 05:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673229"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The way I read that is that there is nothing in the engine to stop a mapmaker from making level-over-level maps, except the knowledge that the Commander won't be able to easily see both levels at the same time. So having two rooms in the same X-Y position would be bad, but you could have a small amount of overlap without annoying the commander too much -- he would solve that the way he does currently by just placing the camera off to the side a bit, so he can see in at an angle.
I could totally see something like a lower level having a narrow corridor that runs underneath a perpendicular corridor in an upper level, so for a few inches of gameplay space there is level-over-level but in most of the space you are only looking at one level at a time. That allows the mapmaker to make more complete use of 3-D space in his designing while still giving the commander a decently intuitive view.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, you could do that in NS1. But look what that gives you. The most overlaying of rooms you get is a vent under/above a room, if you are lucky, and that's about it. In the current situation you can't put much more than a corridor above a room because it will obstruct the commanders view, which is a bad thing.
If you allowed for some level change in the command camera view point, then you could have way more interesting maps. Mappers could stack room on top of each other without having to worry about where the commander might want to place objects in that corner where the room above would otherwise block his view.
The more I think about it, the more I think it is a really bad idea not having level above level supported in the commanders view.
Hmm, so.. could you have the viewheight entity placed at an angle or something? (and have it actually make a difference, ie. viewing on an angle). it'd be interesting, i think. but yeah i know nothing about mapping, so..
What about having the commander interface marine-centric. Let tab cycle through all the marines in the active squad. The camera starts y pixels over the active marine, and moves out as far as possible until it hits anything solid or some set limit. Downside is that you can't view every room in every map, and can't place structures on overlapping terrain unless there is a solider nearby. Upside is it keeps a fast and more importantly accurate level of control while still being easy to use and allowing for interesting map depth.
<!--quoteo(post=1674061:date=Mar 23 2008, 11:59 PM:name=microcosm)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(microcosm @ Mar 23 2008, 11:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674061"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What about having the commander interface marine-centric. Let tab cycle through all the marines in the active squad. The camera starts y pixels over the active marine, and moves out as far as possible until it hits anything solid or some set limit. Downside is that you can't view every room in every map, and can't place structures on overlapping terrain unless there is a solider nearby. Upside is it keeps a fast and more importantly accurate level of control while still being easy to use and allowing for interesting map depth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Another downside is how bind mogglingly slow and tedious the process of cycling marines will be. Which immediately disqualifies the method.
because you mentioned tab-cycling between soldiers.. i feel like a game of Worms. gotta find that old cd... sigh.
Worms was awesome.. ....then they went 3D. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1674126:date=Mar 24 2008, 04:09 PM:name=Domining)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Domining @ Mar 24 2008, 04:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674126"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Another downside is how bind mogglingly slow and tedious the process of cycling marines will be. Which immediately disqualifies the method.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As opposed to clicking on them? Keyboard is much faster than mouse, and unless you are playing 10v10+ I cant see how it can be slow, especially with squad assignments. It shouldn't be the main method of marine management, but it would offer a working solution to multiple levels. If you don't want to assign groups, just have tab default to anything in the x-y range of your screen. You use space like normal, to go to an alert, but tab to cycle quickly through the marines in the area. It also increases consistency for dropping, since the tabbing could be configured to auto-center on the marine or not.
Don't know, maybe you're right, maybe certain commanders would find it useful. But I would never use it because it would be too randem tandem. I'd preffered the biased means of centering on marines based on location. (if I have 3 marines in start, one in west and one in topographical, I'm not going to want to cycle to the marines in start. Its natural for me to assume risk to specific marines, so one marine by a hive in cargo is going to need me to center on him much more than a marine capping c12 node, tab would work MUCH slower)
Comments
Secondly, it also makes equidistant Hive level concepts like the one below (also seen in ns_nexus) more possible.
<img src="http://crispy.nuclear-dawn.net/ns_lemming.PNG" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<!--quoteo(post=1672663:date=Mar 9 2008, 05:35 AM:name=naggy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(naggy @ Mar 9 2008, 05:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1672663"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not entirely sure if the whole 'automatic camera' thing will work TBH.. A pretty fun mod called Zombie Master (<a href="http://www.zombiemaster.org/" target="_blank">http://www.zombiemaster.org/</a>) - which is also a RTS/FPS - uses a system where its similar to spectator mode, but you use the mouse wheel to move up and down amongst the environment and use a bound button to initiate freelook mode to set the camera up the way you want it. You then use wsad buttons to move around at your desired level of height. It works surprisingly well with multi-leveled maps (which most are) and Isn't 'that' hard to learn to use.
Whats so good about it is that it gives you freedom to observe every nook and cranny of the map, be it vents, hallways, sewers, inside houses, etc.
Grats btw.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->ZM doesn't have the same level of micromanagement as NS does. The Master in ZM only has to give spawn, waypoint and attack orders to the troops. In NS there is research, waypointing, structure dropping, item dropping, 'spellcasting', etc. - I don't personally want to have to use too many buttons and too much attention to move the camera around the level in order to perform the primary functions.
P.S. Congrats on the XBox middleware license.
When you have an isometric view it's more likely your vision will be partially blocked by vertical walls/doodads. With an overhead view the only thing that could block your view is an overhang.
It sounds like the commander view will look a lot like it does now, and that doesn't look 2D to me. Also, the devs haven't said anything about level over level, but if they did implement it they would have to make the above levels transparent because the commander needs to have a fairly high up perspective of the map. I don't really see how isometric is better vs. straight down in terms of level-over-level.
<!--quoteo(post=1672668:date=Mar 9 2008, 02:59 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Mar 9 2008, 02:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1672668"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think the manual zooming would be much of a burden, but many seem to be overtasked in basic comming, so whatever suits the game. Anything goes as long as it feels quick and reliable. Almost everything in the ns feels like its in your exact control, I'd hate to lose that in ns2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When I started listening to the podcast I thought the devs were going to go with a controllable camera because that's what all 3D RTS do and had started rationalizing the decision in my head. After they stated they had a fixed position I gave it some thought and realized that this decision had to do with giving the player the best option and not having him/her choose his/her preference. Any benefit of changing the camera view would be negated with the time spent fighting with it when the comm needed to move somewhere else. Instead of forcing a player to memorize the "best camera views" on a map that stuff is all ready preset. This allows a player to focus on what is really important: the strategy of the other team. If a player is messing with the camera they're fighting the game and not his/her opponent and by removing these obstacles they're setting the stage to add real depth to the game. That's why I said they were taking the time to do this "right".
Hints on the floor are concerning considering some areas have high ceilings. It would be difficult to target jet-packing marines, for example, if the current height variable was too low. If you really wanted to have a variable for camera height consistency, you'd need a corresponding ceiling camera hint along with the floor hint. It doesn't seem worth it.
I'd like to see it give the mapper as much or as little control as he wants. So, camera hints would be the exact position the commander camera would be. He could put in a single camera hint and it would act as in NS1. Or he could put in 2 or more camera hints and it would interpolate camera position over space. It would probably be better if hint brushes were used instead of points. This way it would be easier to create flat camera planes and it'd only interpolate where planes didn't exist. (I'm not so sure about time interpolation for the reasons discussed... I can see intelligent hint placement as a better solution)
You hit the nail on the head.
I bet..
I think it would require LODs for the map textures as well if you really wanted it to work. But I have to say I think the NS2 implementation sounds like the best choice.
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><i>If you want us to pay attention to your ideas I'd suggest you propose them in a way that doesn't give us the impression that you're just letting off steam. -- J!</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Of course I don't map for either Half-Life engine so I don't know if this would be frustrating or not or if you can toggle the visibility of BSP in the editor, but I would think that it would reduce processing power.
well actually as stated in the podcast, the camera elevation will more innovative designs. besides i'm sure there will be a sweet spot for the camera in most situations, except for when you want do to something special
As the camera wouldn't be able to sense the height changes accurately.
Can you implement a system where you can have 2 or more cameras over each other at different heights, and the com can switch between them for different levels. Players could have a level colour associated with their glow for ease of recognition as to which level he needs to zoom to.
Clicking on the player after a call would obviously zoom into the player on the right level.
Just an idea.
I like what these guys bring up:
<!--quoteo(post=1672970:date=Mar 12 2008, 09:06 AM:name=Dalin Seivewright)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dalin Seivewright @ Mar 12 2008, 09:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1672970"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wouldn't it take less processing power to just give the mappers an in-game 'invisible' surface plane that they could add in the editor. This would be a horizontal plane of any size that would fill the entire length+width of the room and is X units above the average floor height. The mapper would place these in every room and in game you would have the Commanders camera stay X units above that plane. When the camera's height hits a plane of another height it would ease into the new height at a certain speed.
Of course I don't map for either Half-Life engine so I don't know if this would be frustrating or not or if you can toggle the visibility of BSP in the editor, but I would think that it would reduce processing power.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1673074:date=Mar 13 2008, 07:38 AM:name=Soul_Rider)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Soul_Rider @ Mar 13 2008, 07:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673074"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So I take it that full on level over level play is out still in NS2.
As the camera wouldn't be able to sense the height changes accurately.
Can you implement a system where you can have 2 or more cameras over each other at different heights, and the com can switch between them for different levels. Players could have a level colour associated with their glow for ease of recognition as to which level he needs to zoom to.
Clicking on the player after a call would obviously zoom into the player on the right level.
Just an idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dalin Seivewright's suggestion about planes would make it fairly tiresome for the mapper, since you'd have to manually create a shape for the floor above which you would want the comm to hover. It wouldn't always be best to just copy and paste the floor shape if you have overhanging details. Having a simple point entity that you put near the centre sounds like a restriction, but it would lead to much faster prototyping and it will become intuitive after a while where roughly these cameras need to go, if not in the centre of the room.
If you based it on the floorplan, you'd have to change the Commander view settings every time you changed the floor layout of a room, which is fiddly and annoying.
No manual zooming required by the Commander, so he can focus on doing his job, not on manipulating fiddly view controls.
<!--quoteo(post=1672598:date=Mar 8 2008, 05:14 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Mar 8 2008, 05:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1672598"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Are you considering implementing "levels", ie. if there are two conflicting hints at one location on the x/y axis (where x and y are non-height dimensions) the mapper could determine which hints link to which in what order (similar to a rope entity, so that the flat plane can bend back on itself intelligently)? If you did that, the commander could "toggle" between layers, which would allow a mapper to build level geometry that overlapped itself on the z-axis.
Maybe you answered that already in the podcast? I don't remember hearing anything about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's silly not having a multi-level camera views implemented. Even if they are restricted to only one level over another, it will still give mappers a million more options and make spaces a billion times more exciting to play in. We could finally have realistic feeling maps where one corridor runs above another. And a room could be over another room. A map could have an over ground level, and then tunnels that run down into the core of a planet. How hard can it be, it's surely been done on another games, right? It would just be a case of having 2 sets of view planes that can be scrolled through with -/+ or 2 buttons on the commander hub.
To my mind the more options you give a commander on how he/she can view the map, the better. And if new players get confused about where they are or where they are looking, just have a default view button. This would just take them to a set view above where they are, looking down. That way, no matter what crazy view points you implement a commander can always get back to a normal view.
Don't presume that all your players are the lowest common denominator, because even the bottom of the barrel can learn to climb out. In fact it would be nice, for once, to hear about a developer who thought his target audience had a brain rather than the constant line: “we took X out because a play tester didn’t get it in the first 2 seconds of playingâ€. Half the fun of playing games is learning how to play them, if it’s all to easy then where is the fun?
Sorry guys that isn’t exactly directed at you, more at games generally feeling like they are being dumbed down so much, that they become “easy for everyone to play†(as you almost always hear developers saying) and get dull really quickly (which you don’t hear them say). So I say, more options, more time, more fun <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Because, lets be honest, if I’m going to pay £20-£40 on a game, I want it to last, and be worth it.
So if it takes me a few more hours to master a commander viewing system, but means I have a far more interesting map to play over, then I would happily choose the interesting multi level map and longer learning time over a really easy viewing system and an average map.
Please put in the option for multi-level maps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Luv you guys <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> Great pod cast! Keep up the good work <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<b>EDIT:</b>
<!--quoteo(post=1673157:date=Mar 13 2008, 09:05 PM:name=PogoP)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PogoP @ Mar 13 2008, 09:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673157"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Their proposed solution isn't to allow level over level combat, it's to allow more variety in map height. For example, you could get on an elevator and go deep down into the depths of a map, and the Commander won't have to zoom in to follow your progress; his view will automatically compensate for the change in height by automatically zooming in or out.
No manual zooming required by the Commander, so he can focus on doing his job, not on manipulating fiddly view controls.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What would happen if you were on an elevator going deep down, would the field of view jump to the bottom, stay at the top, or be able to follow the elevator down? If it’s not the last option or a mix of all 3, then it will kind of suck. Because you will have the same issues that NS has. Not being able to see what you need to see. As a commander if an elevator goes too deep then you will be stuck looking at little dots of marines, or waiting for the elevator to come all the way down so you can see your marines. And while you wait they might get eaten.
This is where multiple level viewing could be really useful. Allowing a mapper to break up a long elevator shaft into different levels, without worrying how a commander will view their troops. It would also mean that players who wanted to make maps that revolved around deep mine shafts or deep tunnels could make these maps without worrying if one room over laps another.
Say for example if you had a map on a moon, where a missile silo was situated. Maybe the whole map is positioned around interplanetary missiles. And the marines start at the top and the hives are below them. They could work their way down around the missile along walk ways and down elevator shafts. None of which can be positions above one another according to the current plans, which means you would not be able to get the same depth of game play. Something as simple as an elevator that goes between two floors isn’t possible unless a player exits the elevator from the opposite way they came in. Which in the real world, rarely happens.
Wow I didn't see that, but okay... that's pretty much settled then. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
I could totally see something like a lower level having a narrow corridor that runs underneath a perpendicular corridor in an upper level, so for a few inches of gameplay space there is level-over-level but in most of the space you are only looking at one level at a time. That allows the mapmaker to make more complete use of 3-D space in his designing while still giving the commander a decently intuitive view.
I haven't made a single map for HL2, but from what I have heard about the changes they made in contrast to HL1 map-making is that a single object can have more than one function, for instance - in HL2 you can make a door with a glass window in it that can break - in HL1 you could make a door, or a breakable entity, not both.
If you follow that logic than It should be possible to make an elevator and link it with the height-map-entity, which would work as you described in the 3 option... in theory... it would be good if a HL2 mapper could confirm that!
If you follow that logic than It should be possible to make an elevator and link it with the height-map-entity, which would work as you described in the 3 option... in theory... it would be good if a HL2 mapper could confirm that!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes in theory you can do all 3 options. In theory you can also have multi-level/room above room commander view, but this doesn't mean they are going to do it... ...which makes me cry :'(
<!--quoteo(post=1673229:date=Mar 14 2008, 05:57 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Mar 14 2008, 05:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673229"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The way I read that is that there is nothing in the engine to stop a mapmaker from making level-over-level maps, except the knowledge that the Commander won't be able to easily see both levels at the same time. So having two rooms in the same X-Y position would be bad, but you could have a small amount of overlap without annoying the commander too much -- he would solve that the way he does currently by just placing the camera off to the side a bit, so he can see in at an angle.
I could totally see something like a lower level having a narrow corridor that runs underneath a perpendicular corridor in an upper level, so for a few inches of gameplay space there is level-over-level but in most of the space you are only looking at one level at a time. That allows the mapmaker to make more complete use of 3-D space in his designing while still giving the commander a decently intuitive view.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, you could do that in NS1. But look what that gives you. The most overlaying of rooms you get is a vent under/above a room, if you are lucky, and that's about it. In the current situation you can't put much more than a corridor above a room because it will obstruct the commanders view, which is a bad thing.
If you allowed for some level change in the command camera view point, then you could have way more interesting maps. Mappers could stack room on top of each other without having to worry about where the commander might want to place objects in that corner where the room above would otherwise block his view.
The more I think about it, the more I think it is a really bad idea not having level above level supported in the commanders view.
Let tab cycle through all the marines in the active squad.
The camera starts y pixels over the active marine, and moves out as far as possible until it hits anything solid or some set limit.
Downside is that you can't view every room in every map, and can't place structures on overlapping terrain unless there is a solider nearby.
Upside is it keeps a fast and more importantly accurate level of control while still being easy to use and allowing for interesting map depth.
Let tab cycle through all the marines in the active squad.
The camera starts y pixels over the active marine, and moves out as far as possible until it hits anything solid or some set limit.
Downside is that you can't view every room in every map, and can't place structures on overlapping terrain unless there is a solider nearby.
Upside is it keeps a fast and more importantly accurate level of control while still being easy to use and allowing for interesting map depth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another downside is how bind mogglingly slow and tedious the process of cycling marines will be. Which immediately disqualifies the method.
gotta find that old cd... sigh.
Worms was awesome.. ....then they went 3D. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
As opposed to clicking on them? Keyboard is much faster than mouse, and unless you are playing 10v10+ I cant see how it can be slow, especially with squad assignments. It shouldn't be the main method of marine management, but it would offer a working solution to multiple levels. If you don't want to assign groups, just have tab default to anything in the x-y range of your screen. You use space like normal, to go to an alert, but tab to cycle quickly through the marines in the area. It also increases consistency for dropping, since the tabbing could be configured to auto-center on the marine or not.