The problem with shooters in general

(weasel) #21

Sometimes maps depend on people learning all the little details. For example, when the full version of ET first came out, it was impossible for axis to win on radar. That map would never last any longer than 5 minutes. But after it was out for a while, people started learning the good defensive positions, and the good places to plant mines. Allies have learned a little bit, but nowhere near as much as axis. Now it’s a balanced map. If you’re going to play on a random map, the offensive and defensive strategies all need to be equally obvious, otherwise it won’t work.

(Sick Boy) #22

On the contrary, I thought is was very possible to win as axis, as noone seemed to know about the side entrance, not to mention spawning there!
You could just camp at the main entrance and all would be OK. But nowadays it’s close to impossible to win on that map as axis with somewhat even teams.

(I R O N M A N) #23

The future of FPS will be games that create maps on the fly. This will require much faster PC’s with a lot more RAM, and cable or fiber optic connections to the net to send all that map data to each player, but it’s coming. That will be great. Just wish it could happen sooner.

(damocles) #24

Nah. It won’t take off. Just as we see with SOF2’s map generator, you simply cannot replace the weeks of work that go into making a map fun to play with a random map generator. Maybe 1 in 10 random maps would be fun to play, the rest will be plain and ordinary.

We may see random maps becoming a fad in a few years time, but they’ll soon go back to hand made maps simply because you cannot randomly create atmosphere.

(Cerebrate) #25

I absolutely agree; few things in a game are as predictable as single-player opponents.

The idea of more flexible maps is somewhat interesting, but only in a single-player game. Think of multiplayer as a sport; you know where the sideline is, where the goals are and so on, but what makes the challenge are, as someone already pointed out, the players on the field. I’m not judging you here, but I think those who “know” the game, learns (not memorize, as you put it) and vary their tactics depending on the situation instead of repeating their mistakes and walking into the same “trap” over and over again.

(Miles Teg) #26

I’m not so sure, Damocles.

Sure, it would require some pretty clever algorithms, but I think that it probably is possible to quantify (to a large degree) what properties of a map make for good gameplay (or certainly what makes for bad gameplay - which things can then be avoided). They won’t, perhaps, lack the polish of human-designed maps, but I think that in a few years we could well see generators that gave maps which were in essense fun to play.

(Dawg) #27

Adding a small amount of randomness to a map can be a good thing. But it could also be a bad thing. Random spawn points would not work too well, IMHO. But if you have played the Password custom map, you will note that the password itself is randomly determined. Similarly, the POW_Escape map for RtCW placed the documents in one of four different areas.

Adding random elements to the maps to make subtle changes in gameplay can be problematic. I think the kind of terrain changes that would be required would be difficult to script and would end up creating large map files. Balancing the benefits of one terrain change against another would also be difficult. Its hard enough now to create balanced maps.

I think its a nice idea, but difficult to implement. But then again, bots are hard and some guys are working on that too…

Dawg

(damocles) #28

Sure, it would require some pretty clever algorithms, but I think that it probably is possible to quantify (to a large degree) what properties of a map make for good gameplay (or certainly what makes for bad gameplay - which things can then be avoided). They won’t, perhaps, lack the polish of human-designed maps, but I think that in a few years we could well see generators that gave maps which were in essense fun to play.

Nah, the one thiong random maps can never have, simply because they are random, is flow. Many months of work go into making a top quality map, a lot of which is spent making the map flow. Random maps may get lucky here and there and create maps with good flow, but a lot of the time the flow will be broken and erratic. One of the things that make SD’s ET maps so much fun to play is the ease with which the action moves from one area to the next. Random maps would not be able to recreate this reliably. It’s something that can only come about from experience or testing.

(I R O N M A N) #29

What could be more enjoyable than fighting in an area that was previously unknown to everyone? How cool that would be. Not knowing where the enemy is or how to get there exept knowing it must be in “that direction”.

As for “atmosphere”, who is to say what can be created by a map generator? Just 3 years ago, nobody had a PC fast enough to run Wolf ET at all. The next generation of games (DOOM III engine, Unreal Tech engine etc.) will require far more powerful PC’s than what is available today for descent frame rates. If you want to play these games at anything higher than 640x480, you will need well over $1000 in new hardware. I hate to break it to you, but it’s true. Remember when RTCW came out just 2 yrs ago? Most players got terrible frame rates untill getting something a more powerful processor and a more powerful vid card. So, as hardware tech improves, so does programing tech. A map generator is certainly pheasible to say the least.

(Wikkit) #30

Well, to clarify my position in case anybody is interested and to avoid being seen as a backward fuck. :wink:

The idea as such is not a bad one, in fact it might very well add sort of a new dimension to FPS-gaming. But the model does not fit every kind of FPS. Again, take RTCW, a fast-paced shooter having little room for sneaking around. I maintain that that game is nothing but an evolved form of the classic deathmatch game. Randomly altering the layout of the map, besides introducing poorly planned maps, will decrease the momentum of the gameplay, which would be disastrous for a game of this sort. In RTCW (again the example) a sacrifice was made, namely realism for action and speed.

On the other hand, a game like for example Ghost Recon (and similars) would perhaps benefit alot from randomly generated maps because that is a shooter based alot more on stealth and covert operation. Sneaking around, scouting the terrain would add to the immersion in a game like that.

So, in sum, your idea is not a bad one and the technical difficulties can always be overcome so long as somebody visionary enough is willing to try (Carmack being a case in point), but it has a limited application on FPSers.

I think the idea should be pursued. Progress is only possible where people dare to think out of the box.

Cheers,
Wikkit

(damocles) #31

Random map generators cannot create flowing, atmospheric levels simply because they are random. Random is by it’s very nature chaotic and non-flowing.

Nosferatu has a semi-random map generator for it’s SP levels. I think it makes maps out of pre-designed blocks of map which can be linked together. This idea has potential because you can recognise features of blocks and get a rough idea what to expect. However, due to the nature of the generator, the blocks need to be joined and so all end up having similar layouts and architecture. This will be fun for a while and then become bland and unintersting. This approach of prefab levels linked together is the only way you could really make random levels that aren’t pointless and disorienting.

Part of the fun of MP maps is that you learn the map and learn how to use it well. IF the map is different every round then you lose the learning factor altogether and a large portion of the fun of the game is removed.

IronMan - wtf has framerates got to do with random map generators? The technology is available today (and has been for ages) to make random maps it’s simply a case that developers realise you can’t make random maps reliably fun. Only a handful of all maps made would be great to play, the rest would suck. You cannot randomly make flow. Flow is designed and refined over a period of time. All developers can hope to do in the future is to have a map where the flow is laid out by designers, but certain aspects are replacable by random factors. Say if the buildings in a WW2 game are randmised so you don’t always have the same structure inside and not always the same windows are open for shooting out of.

Computers being able to understand what makes a game good is a long way off. It’s up there with the AI problems and giving computers the ability to think. Unless someone makes a breakthrough and is able to mathematically calculate what makes a map fun, then a random map generator capable of making interesting levels on a reliable basis is a LONG LONG way away. You can throw all the brute power at it you want, until someone makes the right discovery, random (MP) maps will contnue to suck ass. SP has a lot more potential for accepting random maps gracefully due to the fact that a lot of fun in SP playing is in exploring an unknown level.

(Miles Teg) #32

Random map generators cannot create flowing, atmospheric levels simply because they are random.

Obviously, there are varying degrees of randomness. At the extreme, you could divide your map into so many tiny cubes, and then for each randomly decide whether it should be empty or full, and if full, full with what. But this wouldn’t be likely to even contain a space big enough for a player, so less randomness is needed.

I think that there could potentially be a system which knew certain elements which enhanced gameplay and incorporated them - it would recognise routes to objectives, and so tend to avoid designs without multiple routes. Programs can be taught, in a loose sense, to ‘think’. We could (empirically) come up with some (complicated, admittedly) methods to quantify how ‘good’ a map was, which a generating program could then aim at. I think that what you’d lack on [sufficiently well-] generated maps would be atmosphere rather than gameplay.

(ConchMan) #33

Now, i don’t keep up with football, but don’t they tweak some of the rules every single season? Why would that be? I think it’s because they don’t want ppl to take advantage of the game’s weaknesses.

Changing the size of the field would be a really BIG change. And I’m not suggesting that sort of thing should happen at all.

Here’s another example. On Gold Rush have you ever witnessed the guy who stands on the hill (on the truck escape route) and panzer spams the corridor in front of the axis spawn? From his position, all he needs to do is wait until the respawn counter reaches 1 sec (or even recycles to 20) and then send a rocket from way up the hill down to that corridor knowing full well the axis is about to walk around the corner. Boom, an instant 3 kills and 100% accuracy, big surprise. That’s not skillful. I see this sort of thing all the time on servers.

On the other hand, if the respawn counter could be lessened or greatened for each player (or as a team) based on the amount of xp a player/team has, that sort of spaming would be much more difficult.

I’m all for making very small changes that alter gameplay. I’m not suggesting entire new maps be generated. Just a tree here, a crate there, a boulder here, a hump there, or use a boulder with a different shape next time…small things. Let the server co-ordinate it and the clients be bounded to the changes.

(Kendle) #34

Now, i don’t keep up with football, but don’t they tweak some of the rules every single season? Why would that be? I think it’s because they don’t want ppl to take advantage of the game’s weaknesses.
[/quote]
Sorry, I’m talking about FootBall, the European version, not American FootBall. For our US cousins it’s called Soccer. They haven’t made any significant changes to game-play for as long as I can remember. What rules are changed are minor tweaks here and there to ensure fairer play, but the game remains the same, played on a pretty bare, rectangular, pitch with a goal at each end, just like it’s always been.

The objectives are the same, tactics are mostly the same, it’s played with exactly the same number of players as it’s always been. What makes each game different is the players, they never do exactly the same thing twice. No one game is ever exactly like another. Brute force memorization doesn’t come into it, everyone knows exactly what to do and how to do it, it’s the execution of that knowledge and the skill of the players that makes each game a unique experience.

(ConchMan) #35

Now, i don’t keep up with football, but don’t they tweak some of the rules every single season? Why would that be? I think it’s because they don’t want ppl to take advantage of the game’s weaknesses.
[/quote]
Sorry, I’m talking about FootBall, the European version, not American FootBall. For our US cousins it’s called Soccer. They haven’t made any significant changes to game-play for as long as I can remember. What rules are changed are minor tweaks here and there to ensure fairer play, but the game remains the same, played on a pretty bare, rectangular, pitch with a goal at each end, just like it’s always been.

The objectives are the same, tactics are mostly the same, it’s played with exactly the same number of players as it’s always been. What makes each game different is the players, they never do exactly the same thing twice. No one game is ever exactly like another. Brute force memorization doesn’t come into it, everyone knows exactly what to do and how to do it, it’s the execution of that knowledge and the skill of the players that makes each game a unique experience.[/quote]

I would say soccer is not really appropriate for comparison because there are no inanimate obstacles that must be negotiated like in ET. Both games have players, but one relies heavily on dissimilar terrain for great gameplay and the other relies heavily on similar terrain for great gameplay.

However, even soccer has little random aspects that greatly enhance the gameplay that simply can not be predicted. The age of the ball limits how well it can be handled. The temperature and humidity of the air during the game has an effect on everything from the weight/size of the ball, to the endurance of the players, to the soil’s traction. The kind/design and age of the cleats you (or your opponents) wear affects the gameplay also. Whether the game is indoor or outdoor will affect a player’s perception and his ability to judge distances as the sun glares or if there is scattered cloud cover. The type of soil or whether it’s artificial will also have a significant effect on the game.

Only a truly great player can surmount such obstacles in order to win. Being merely knowledgeable about every aspect can not do it alone in soccer. The same should be true in ET. And that’s why there should be a level of uncertainty about small details in ET.

(I R O N M A N) #36

There is something called an “algorythm”. Programmers have been using them for many years. They also use them to create the artificial intelligence routines that operate your enemies in single player gaming. They can be used to do many things in software, including creating maps.

Frame rates relate to a map generator because assuming that as PC’s get more powerful, maps will get bigger. The bigger the map, the more power from a PC is required to play it, the bigger the map, the lower the frame rate… unless PC’s of the day are powerful enough.

What I was saying is that PC’s will need to be much more powerful before a map generator can be useful for making maps that are quite large.

Something else to think about: Untill PC’s are as powerful as that, it could be that we may see a map generator that simply “pastes” together pre-made map sections. Let’s say you have 30 map sections that are designed so they work together to create interesting maps when connected. 50 sections times 50 is how many (I think) potential maps you could have. 500 maps is a lot! Now what if a map generator not only connected these sections, but created new ones to connect to as well. Consider the possibilities!

(damocles) #37

There is something called an “algorythm”. Programmers have been using them for many years

Christ almighty, if you’re going to try and patronise someone simply because you don’t have any other valid counter position to a debate, at least check your spelling first.

You are either not a programmer or you’re one of those people that has just started learning programming and assumes he knows more than everyone else because of this.

And you appear to be living in a very strange world. In your world, PCs need power to make maps bigger. In the real world, they need good programmers/designers to devise ways of limiting what is drawn so that you don’t need power to run them. This point is also completely unrelated to random map generation. Unless for some bizaerre reason, in your world the thought police will only allow you to make random maps that are extraordinarily vast in scale.

And no matter what way you look at it - the only way to make maps is to paste them together from prefabs. Whether these prefabs are actual mini-maps created by humans, or designs converted into algorithm form ready to be constrcuted on the fly is irrelevant. If the map was made in a pure random form it would be utter chaos. You need to tewll the computer what buildings look like, what hills are, why sewers run underground instead of floating through the sky. This is all prefabbing in various forms.

And my original point about not being able to teach a computer about flow and good design still stands. You can give it a set of basic rules and refine them over and over until it reduces the number of screw-ups it makes, but a computer can never understand what makes good design. As such, the random maps that follow these rules will soon become boring and repetitive as these rules never bend. At the moment (and most likely for good 100 years or so) only humans (and probably some primates) are capable of abstract thought. Only people can design. Computers can merely follow guidelines.

(I R O N M A N) #38

How you come to that conclusion is beyond me. Why you have a problem grasping what I am talking about in simple terms is also beyone me.

Somehow you have gotten way off track here. We were discussing “random” maps generation. Algorithms are what is used in EVERYTHING that PC’s do that creates ANYTHING considered random. How could the routine (an algorithm) that creates something randomly be unrelated to creating random maps?

How can you come to the comclusion that PC’s would not need to be powerful to randomly create large maps? Do you think the maps just appear on their own without calculating vertices, brushes, objects, models, light sources, spawn points, textures and such? The larger the map, the more calculation is envolved, and the more powerful PC is needed to do it in the same amount of time. Do you have the slightest idea of what is going on when you join a server and ET says “Loading”???
Pay attention now…

Furthermore, if a random map is created by the server, the server has to send the algorithm it used and other data to every client in the game. That’s more calculations and more data to be sent over the net.
Still paying attention?

Um… that’s what the algorithm is. You need to understand what an algorithm is it seems.

Again, that’s what the algorithm is for.

Once more, that’s what the algorithm is for. The game could include perhaps dozens of algorithms for map generation.

One more time… that’s what the algorithm is for.

(duke'ku) #39

then it wouldn’t be random. using your definition, every map is already completely random because we must tell the computer every step to take to build it. that’s not random.

(damocles) #40

I’m not even going to bother with you anymore, you are living in your own little world where an algorithm is this magic device that solves all the world’s problems. I’ve got some bad news for you bud, an algorithm is a description of a series of commands, that is all. Using the word algorithm as an aswer to every point raised is like using the word banana to solve world hunger.

If you are not a troll and would actually like to discuss the future of random map generation, then please elaboreate on this miracle algorithm and then explain to me how this was not covered when I said:

You can throw all the brute power at it you want, until someone makes the right discovery, random (MP) maps will contnue to suck ass.

And my reply to your comments about needing powerful PCs would only apply if you made a map that was at least 85% random and as such would need compiling before being ready. Oh wait, the doom3 engine doesn’t need any compiling and maps are ready to play the second they are saved. Well blow me!

If we are talking about engines like Q3TA/source that do require compiling, then the only approach that would be feasible even if you were running 6GHz PCs with 2gigs of 1600MHz RAM would be the prefab approach. You would have to make precompiled sections that are linked together. Again, another approach that requires no compilation by the end users.

So when you wake from your magical algorithm dream and actually have a grasp on what you are talking about, feel free to come back and discuss an otherwise very interesting topic.