2 stages maps

(.FROST.) #1

Two days ago I used the “noclip” command for the first time in an other map than Container City and I’ve noticed, that in Resort and probably every other 2 stage map, all parts of the maps are present all the time, even though you can only access one or the other part at any given time.

So my question is; why are all sections of a map present even though you can only be in one or the other? It probably reduces the loading time when the game switches to the next stage, but why aren’t the parts actually connected then? I don’t know if it would make much sense gameplay wise, considering how they are build now, but the maps could’ve, in the first place, been build in a way so it would make sense.

(.Chris.) #2

I guess technical limitations with idtech4, in ET:QW it wasn’t possible to have objects moving around online so you couldn’t add sequences after an objective was completed beyond explosions masking a model switcheroo (replace a normal model with a damaged version) and having sliding doors open, not that exciting really.

So probably with Brink they wanted to add some nice sequences but the only way to show these consistently in an online environment with idtech 4 was with cutscenes and split the maps up.

(.FROST.) #3

Not the splitting and the cutscenes make me wonder, the fact, that both stages are allways present, does. You just can access one or the other, depending if you allready did the first main objective or not, that’s the odd thing. But the two parts are allways there, wich you can see in noclip. I allways thought the second stage of a match is basically a new map, but it isn’t. The two parts are connected, but you can’t get there in a normal match.

(.Chris.) #4

Yeah that’s to be expected though, when you’re in the playing area the whole map isn’t rendered, it’s portaled off so only the area you’re in is drawn and the rest when you get to a certain point, and for larger areas LOD groups would be used so distant objects aren’t drawn at full detail till your close enough to notice it. Not sure how much they changed in Brink from ET:QW but these links may be of interest:

http://wiki.splashdamage.com/index.php/Portal_Basics

http://wiki.splashdamage.com/index.php/LOD_Groups

As mentioned, this whole blocking business is most likely a result of the cutscenes and to stop players skipping objectives which again would break the cutscenes.

(zenstar) #5

I’d guess it would be to reduce load times (load the map once and then just switch to other sections), and the old section is locked off to focus the action.

You no longer need to head back to the previous section we’ve already done so why leave it open and have the possibility of someone taking a wrong turn and getting lost? Can you imagine escorting someone with an objective and they decide to run down the wrong way and back to the 1st spawn point?

Sure, people who’d played for a while wouldn’t do that, but it’s frustrating for new people. Why not just close off the unused section?

And you don’t allow people to jump ahead otherwise you have people trying to sit on the final objective while waiting for the rest of the entire map to get finished. A more focused map makes for a more fun game (in any game).

(.Chris.) #6

Well, you say that but in ET you could complete secondary missions that gave you access to the last stage before the primary 1st objective had been completed. This wasn’t a problem, it made the maps vastly more interesting, defences had to be more alert and proactive rather than what you had in Brink camping behind boxes and behind railing on balconies (generalising yeah).

I’m not sure the occasional newbie going the wrong way warrants simplifying maps into the linear bore fest that we were treated to in Brink. A well designed map will make sure you go the right using visual cues plus you can add objective markers like ET:QW, though sometimes there’s no helping some folk but still lets not restrict our possibilities over something like this. On some maps in the past the previous stage have indeed actually been used to take run a document objective through and back to your current spawn in order to be safe, takes longer though, much longer. Remember these maps aren’t as straight forward as Brink:

Link here: http://pastebin.com/RPG91NUh because pasting onto here even with code tags messed it up. Should have drawn picture instead ha, grossly simplified but hopefully you get the idea. Also remember you can select where you spawn in previous games, something Brink was lacking due to it been designed out.

Not all maps were like this and some maps that did let you get to last stage, like ones in ET:QW, there was a delay from when that last objective was doable from completing the previous objective.

(Humate) #7

why are all sections of a map present even though you can only be in one or the other?

Apart from the technical reasons, their official response for this back in development was that it would be too confusing for the playerbase if each objective wasnt sectioned off.

In ETQW the attacking team could access the areas around the 2nd objective, regardless of whether 1st was completed or not.
This allowed players to “objective camp” the 2nd objective, in the hope that they complete it before the enemy falls back.
It was a common tactic in etqw that worked well, until the defending teams learnt to concede objectives ahead of time, which then aloud them to set up defences/turrets/mines early.

If you put all your eggs in one basket to save 1st objective, and fail… the 2nd will be completed in a blink of an eye.

(zenstar) #8

While I agree with you .Chris. I also think Brink was designed to be… “more accessible”. Basically streamlining it down to try reach a wider audience who would get lost and wouldn’t focus properly without the map being closed off (as Humate says).

ET games are a niche style and to open it up to a wider audience means diluting it a bit to broaden the appeal. The trick is diluting the right parts while retaining the other right parts. Not an easy mix. Is sectioning off the map a part that needs to stay or go? I don’t know. But I suspect that was the thinking with this design.

(.FROST.) #9

I understand why they generally shut off the first stage of a map, after the first main obj is completed, but CC for example is a quite huge map and nobody gets lost there, even though the first part of the map stays wide open the whole time. Same(almost) with Sec Tower. Aside from the fact, that you need the first part of the map to extract the prisoner, I don’t see people getting lost there when they are at the 2nd Main objective. After playing the map once everbody knows when and where they have to run to.

Btw., why does CC and Refuel don’t have a inter-match cutscene? Every other map has one. But then again, those are exactly those maps where you can get anywhere all the time; even Sec-Tower has only access to all areas, after you’ve freed Nechayev.(But in both maps you got a little crane/robot-arm do their little thing for you. So that’s probably the replacement for a cutscene)
Nevertheless, Imho a inconsistant choice of cut-scenes yes/no and map parts totally seperated(Aquarium), seperated depending on your progress(Sec Tower)and totally open and accessable from the beginning(Container City).

(Humate) #10

The inconsistency in cutscenes could be due to lack of time/resources.

But the segmenting itself, from a gameplay perspective is to slow the game down. They amplify this with extended hack objective times, escort missions, bot missions and doc runs which intercept enemy spawn. And they give players really inaccurate weaponry, and high amounts of health so that players cant speed through a map and shoot their way to victory, which is kind of counter-intuitive to what you would expect from a shooter.

Although the developers may have drawn the conclusion that the fundamental driving force behind players playing the game, isnt to win… but to farm enough xp for their “character”. In which case the above all makes sense.

/cough

(Humate) #11

I would have preferred the first 2 objectives on each map to be… lemming-able (if thats a word)
So a combination of either - destroy/hack/repair with open pathways to each from the beginning.
And then a final objective, which contrasts the frantic pace with a more methodical style of combat.
This is where you would auto-respawn everyone… But since the repetitiveness would be boring
these maps would be designated to a specific faction like the Resistance

For Security maps on attack, I would flip it. The first objective would be slow and methodical,
and the last two would be lemming-able. eg Escort - Repair - Destroy

By allowing players to lemming, now bodytypes mean something. That said I would remove bodytypes all together
and tie weapon weight to player speed. I would also make “smart” purely skill based, so that lemming tactics are not frowned upon.

/cough

(.Chris.) #12

Yeah I get the reasoning behind it but I don’t reckon it wasn’t needed, a few more challenge maps could have introduced the concepts of alternative spawns and spawn switching, they would have needed to bring the command map and limbo menu for this to work though. Not all maps had to be setup in this same manner either, all 6 ET maps played rather differently to one another, some more straight forward than others, was something for everyone.

ET:QW over 12 maps didn’t have the same kind of variety beyond aesthetics, sequence breaking was pretty much eliminated unless you glitched/cheated but the size of the maps gave you lots of options for using map space in different ways. It was pretty sensible to not be able to skip objectives though in ET:QW, with the size of the maps if you managed to slip by through a secondary entrance you’ve blown up it would be very difficult for the defense to fall back in time to have chance to recover and if you had a split defense the player numbers would be spread too thin and things would become rather boring.

Anyway Brink just didn’t deliver in the same way, SMART should have been the next big thing but the maps didn’t really allow for it to be used in any meaningful way and SMART itself didn’t feel finished, the combination of awesome map layouts and more refined SMART system would have made the game more entertaining for me personally, I could live with the Barbie options and one button to rule them all stuff.

(Humate) #13

The differences b/w maps are subtle, but each of them do actually play differently in etqw imo.
That said, they could have done with an extra indoor centric map or two.

(.Chris.) #14

Not as much as ET though. Some maps follow identical objective structure, destroy jamming generator, build mining laser, destroy last objective (Salvage, Ark, Area22). MCP maps are largely same as in they’re just annoying and need deleting :smiley: (Valley, Outskirts, Canyon, Refinery). Then you have Island and Quarry with destroy and/or building then doc runs then we have Volcano having that unique last objective (that doesn’t work well). They just don’t feel as imaginative as ET which is a shame considering the sci-fi theme with arguably more possibilities than WW2.

(zenstar) #15

I don’t disagree with your points .Chris. but I’d like to point out: Vehicles. ET:QW had 'em and Brink didn’t.
Now if we’re talking changing Brink then yeah… open it up more, add some transport (not the same as ET:QW, maybe just some bikes since it’s primarily enclosed spaces) and fiddle the maps and objectives a bit and change some of the interactions…
But if we’re talking what’s been done and what we have then I think shutting down sections makes more sense for Brink.

(.Chris.) #16

ET didn’t have vehicles though and the map sizes were comparable to Brink yet offered much more tactical variance than Brink, even with weapon load outs tied to classes and no bodytypes.

Brink’s maps needed to be set out better, the overall size of them was fine. Also SMART was severely underutilised as something useful. I think it was Yahtzee who summed it up best, something along the lines of ‘SMART is solution to getting over small random obstacles throughout the map, here’s an idea, don’t place small random obstacles throughout the map’. Whilst a bit harsh he had a point, I did mainly used SMART to get over boxes and stuff that were in the way but why were those boxes there anyway? Just felt like they invented SMART and couldn’t think of a good way to use it then chucked in a load of unnecessary clutter in maps so that you’re almost forced to use SMART.

Some better arrangement of objectives and spawn locations would have helped enormously on there own but yeah been opened up slightly more and proper alternative routes and forward spawns would have been much more welcome.

(zenstar) #17

[QUOTE=.Chris.;407350]ET didn’t have vehicles though and the map sizes were comparable to Brink yet offered much more tactical variance than Brink, even with weapon load outs tied to classes and no bodytypes.
[/QUOTE]
You’re right. I was thinking more ET:QW.
And I don’t disagree that ET maps were great (well… at least some of them. Some of them used to annoy the hell out of me).

Brink’s maps needed to be set out better, the overall size of them was fine. Also SMART was severely underutilised as something useful. I think it was Yahtzee who summed it up best, something along the lines of ‘SMART is solution to getting over small random obstacles throughout the map, here’s an idea, don’t place small random obstacles throughout the map’. Whilst a bit harsh he had a point, I did mainly used SMART to get over boxes and stuff that were in the way but why were those boxes there anyway? Just felt like they invented SMART and couldn’t think of a good way to use it then chucked in a load of unnecessary clutter in maps so that you’re almost forced to use SMART.

Yeah… I didn’t really want to bring up the old criticisms that we’ve seen in every thread :slight_smile: Let’s just say I mostly agree with your points.

Some better arrangement of objectives and spawn locations would have helped enormously on there own but yeah been opened up slightly more and proper alternative routes and forward spawns would have been much more welcome.

Agreed. There could have been some better maps. I never claimed that Brink’s maps were the best :slight_smile: I was mainly talking about the existing maps.

In summation: yeps. I agree. But without changing what we got I still think closing down sections of the map to focus people is better for the Brink that currently exists. If we could redesign things then I’d totally agree with map designs as per your suggestion and forget about closing off sections (not to mention making other gamplay tweaks).

(Humate) #18

Actually the two maps that came to mind, when typing that post was - salvage and area22.
Identical objective structure, yet they play completely different.

I agree that MCP maps are annoying, and there were a few too many of them.
Also agree on the last objective on volcano

That said, I appreciate the consistency in objective structure each faction has.
The subtle differences b/w mining laser phases and gdf hack phases and strogg and gdf charge objectives. When its combined with different map layouts, its pretty cool imo.

(.Chris.) #19

Well were you see consistency I see lack of imagination. I just feel over 12 maps they could have done something more interesting than what they did. Be nice to hear of any maps that didn’t make the cut like we’ve heard about in W:ET with those maps that were too ambitious or didn’t work well.

(Humate) #20

What I see is, the gameplay makes the map not the other way around. :slight_smile: