Slashdot Mirror
Randomized Maps in Team Fortress 2 Explained
Given the amount of time that gamers have been playing the original Team Fortress, it's no wonder that Valve has designed the upcoming Team Fortress 2 with longevity in mind. One aspect of that design process is map layout: a randomization algorithm will reconfigure the map every time a game is launched. The result will be a multiplayer game requiring much more than simple map memorization and sniper rifle spawn camping. The post on Computer and Videogames offers a video featuring project lead Robin Walker describing the complicated process of making every random map work well. "As for how the dynamic maps work in practice, that was hard to judge. The match we played on Hydro, the first map to use this special game mode, was enormous fun. But as extensive as our playtest was, they didn't let us play on the map for three years, and that's the kind of heavy use under which this system should flourish. What we did notice is that this is not just a Battlefield type system with some control points 'locked'. When a point is not in play, routes to that section of the map are physically blocked off, so the physical shape of the map is different for every combination of points. That forces you to revise your mental picture of the map, and see it as fresh again."
That's been a long time in coming. Halo 3 multi-player developers take note...
Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
I never understood why they had specific places where the player respawned. While you'd want to ensure that you didn't respawn someone right above a hole, it makes more sense to just respawn the player in a random location. Except in CTF where the player should always be spawned at their base.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Am I the only one that hates randomly generated maps? I know the concept is becoming popular, and I certainly don't like campers any more than the next guy, but I find it really just not fun to play on a map that constantly changes.
Haiku for you!
Is it me, or was that (including the video clip) not really much of an explanation?
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
Is it just me, (and no, I didn't RTFA) but does the brief summary seem to indicate they are doing basically the same thing that racing games do to reuse a track (but with a little randomness instead of being "fixed"). For example, in the NFS series, when you go around a track during level 1, there is a concrete wall that blocks of a portion of a track. Then, in level 2, you get the same location, but the concrete wall is moved so that you can travel down that piece of the track.
Still cool. But not as much memorization as they imply.....
Layne
I've always liked the idea of the game actively playing against you in some fashion in some sort of "third team" situation. I'd like the idea of an on the fly map change as if some spectators were judging you. For instance if your team is up by 30 points maybe your base gets worse vantage points, maybe the other team gets extra spawn points, or so on. Sort of a way to balance the game as you play a single map. And even better every time you are down by 30 points a different "mutator" if you'll allow me to use UT termonology is applied. Maybe the other team slows down to taunt, maybe the other team gets weaker weapons, maybe you're weapons just get more powerful. Different locations, different level design. Essentially you're world will change randomly as if some overlord is toying with you.
That being said that's a hard proposal.
On the other hand this sounds great as well, creating a new challenge, and longevity that most games seem to lack as well as keeping with the old tried and true gameplay, which a lot of games ignore (seriously Capture the flag should be in all these games, even if you make 5 new modes, why isn't CTF and deathmatch and team deathmatch not mandatory?)
Sounds like a great idea to me but I have one question. Can I have an @ for my player mesh?
That's a good way to avoid being labeled a terrorist for drawing the "wrong" kind of map that might resemble a school or government installation.
What?
It makes me so incredibly happy that Team Fortress 2, a game I had written off as dead, is now more exciting than before it dropped off the radar. I guess it is barely the same game though. I think calling it Random Level design is a bit misleading though. It sounds like the next control point you push towards is chosen randomly, and the rest of the level is locked off. I'm sure people have been thinking about this type of game mode for a while. Heck TFC had most of the elements, just not put together into one map. However, to pull this off well, it is going to require some heavy level design.
This is part of the ongoing trend to reduce the advantage of skill and make outcomes more random.
The elements of skill at FPSs:
1. Twitch
2. Map control
3. Enemy prediction
4. Self unpredictability
Twitch is pretty much dead now that FPSs are designed for consoles, and usually running at 30fps. Success at twitch requires good genetics (fast reaction time is critical), and obsessive training (so it can become subconscious, if you have to think you'll be to slow), so understandably it is not popular with all gamers. Therefore the game designers add autoaim and weapon spread to make it less important.
Map control requires great memorization and 3d visualization skills. You need to know where every chokepoint, every item spawn, every enemy spawn is, and be able to instantly visualize every route between any two arbitrary points on the map. This isn't so limited by genetics, but if still requires a lot of effort, and again repels the "casual" gamers. Randomizing the maps makes this skill less important.
At the tactical level, enemy prediction and self unpredictability are closely related to map control. There's a constant tension between needing to control the map and avoiding predictable behavior. Things like knowing high traffic areas to fire a rocket into without looking, and knowing where an enemy is most likely to appear after seeing them briefly all depend on map knowledge. These last two skills are not completely eliminated by random maps, only reduced to skill at highly local movement.
Map randomization helps reduce multiplayer FPS from a legitimate competitive sport to just another amusement.
...where a post comparing TF2 to DNF gets modded "Troll" instead of "Redundant". The world is changïng. Will we see both these titles in the coming year?
Dynamic maps make the game smarter. You can no longer play a map endlessly till you have it so memorized you can do it in your sleep.
This adds another aspect to playing the game. You know what you have to do, but now you also need to explore the map and find the weapons, find the best choke points all while the other team is doing the same thing. And you have to do this every single time.
Team communication is going to be even more important now. Your team will have to be dynamic and adaptable to not only the enemy, but to the terrain as well.
As far as I'm concerned, eliminating the blind rush to see who can get the super weapon/power up first is a good thing. Making players think more is not making the game dumber. People who don't like to think, who don't like new challenges every time they enter the game, won't like it.
I stopped playing FPS' because I was bored with the maps. People played the same maps over and over and over and over. It was always a mad rush to the same known locations. While that can be fun too, after a while I need some variety.
"The avalanch has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." -Kosh
I don't care, Valve pissed on their chips when they added adverts into classic CS.
I'm a huge TFC fan, I play it even to today and love every moment of it, but I absolutely refuse to buy another Valve game ever again due to extremely poor marketeering.
I like muppets.
Depends on your personality, I guess. There is more than one kind of player, and there are several classifications already.
:)
E.g., in Bartle's scheme (ok, so it was made for MUDs/MMOs, not FPS, but it does partially apply to more than MUDs/MMOs) I can just see a die-hard achiever (the guys playing for score) jumping in front of the same vent or taking the same pre-learned route to maximize his score. Whereas an explorer will love discovering new routes, dealing with new situations, etc.
And don't laugh, I personally know someone who spent _years_ playing the same map, taking the same route, climbing on the same ladder, crawling through the same duct, and jumping up and down in front of the same vent, because that's where he got the biggest score. Just the thought of _that_ kind of mind-numbing monotony makes me cringe, but he found it fun. There you go, it's illustration enough that more than one player type exists.
E.g., taking the casual player vs hardcore player distinction, a casual player is less likely to devote time learning and fine-tuning their exact route and tactics to win on that exact map. He/she just wants to jump in, run around and shoot someone, and basically be done with it. A random map scenario is pretty much ideal for a casual player since, basically, it's new for everyone. There are no people who have already spent months learning this exact map. So everyone starts equal, and from there it's only up to your reflexes and ability to deal with the new. If you do have the reflexes, it doesn't matter if you're new to the game or to that map.
That's just two distinctions, but I'm sure more can be defined. Bottom line is that some of us _will_ find it more fun and mentally stimulating to play on random maps, while others will hate it. What else is new?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I completely agree here. Random does not mean that knowledge of a map becomes less important, only that you have to gain that knowledge over the course of the game instead of over a year. It seems to me that the skill to quickly analyze your environment is far more interesting than the skill to memorize a single map. This is from someone who hasn't played CS in about a year yet I could probably still do De_Dust2 blindfolded.
The memorization is the prerequisite for playing the *real* game, which is the player-vs-player mindgames. It's exactly like in 2d beat-'em-ups, where the ability for all players to pull off all the special moves at will is required before there is any interesting gameplay. You need the limitations and known elements to provide a framework to work within - thinking "what is my opponent thinking now", and "what does my opponent think I am thinking", and the psychology behind it. If you are no good at this then you can lose the game before you have even started.
Complaining about the maps being the same all the time is like complaining about the lack of powerups and special moves in tennis (another game with great tactical depth within a limited rule structure).
I'm sure some counter-strike: Source maps already use logic relays to randomly open or close paths in the level - is that not similar? (DNRTFA)
I remember actually buying Quake 2 because this game was supposed to be a mod for it. Then, a few years later, there were big, gushing preview articles in PC game magazines about how TF2 was coming out after all, for the Half-Life engine, and it would be the BEST EVER, with volumetric fog and level-of-detail meshes and something about character animation. (All this sounded cutting-edge at the time.) Then it never came out, and now the cycle repeats itself.
This game has been in development almost as long as Duke Nukem Forever. I think we're well into "put up or shut up" territory here.
I know the map sequence 99% of the servers in Half-Life TFC by heart. It's easy!
2fort
2fort
2fort
2fort
2fort
That was my biggest gripe of Half Life TFC: Almost no map variety. You were almost always guaranteed to play 2fort. It was the de_dust of TFC. It got boring after awhile.
I enjoyed the other maps like the attack/defense map where you would have the attacking team going literally at a snail's pace towards the flag due to all the crossfire. It was great. Favorite map? The map of the gigantic living room where snipers frequently stood in the bookshelf.
In terms of multiplayer-PC game maps, Multi Theft Auto is great. Tons of maps(Deathmatch and race), most of them suck, but still fun to play. They load literally in a second, being grafted onto San Andreas. Now only if the combat(ie get out of your car) MTA will surface.
GTA2->3 is an interesting example.
The main gameplay sections actually aren't that different between the 2! In fact this is most obvious in GTA3, which had an "overhead" camera mode that made it look surprisingly close to 2. Really, the difference is mostly camera angle, and being able to do a bit more vertically. (And, I'd say, drive a lot faster since then you could see where you were going!)
The real difference, IMO, was that *cutscenes* were now in the same 3D engine, instead of just voiceover phonecalls and what not. This compelled the designers to make the games rather more linear... branching, a tad, but linear. I never got deeply into 2 but I think it had a lot more flexibility in what missions you took and which gang you sided with. I know some people who say 2 is better than 3 for that kind of reason.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
I've been waiting for this day for a long time. I think I emailed Valve back when they first announced TF2, asking them to implement something like this .... now it's here!!
I hope I never have to play de_dust again!!! (well I actually can't play anything right now, cause I'm too lazy to configure the 3d drivers under ubuntu and then play around with Cedega to get Steam working...)
Either way, thank you Valve.
Unreal Tournament 2004 has a mode called Onslaught, with 'nodes' across the map that can be captured. Owning a node means your team can spawn there when it isn't under attack, and your team gets first dibs on vehicles that spawn there. The interesting difference between ONS and other position-capturing modes in other games is that nodes form a network in UT, and you can only capture nodes 'connected' to the ones you already control. Most maps offer a variety of different pre-set network configurations, each completely changing the strategic dynamics of the map. But, more on topic here, the game supported randomized networks. Unfortunately the heuristics to pick the random network were pretty dumb, so you ended up with plenty of "playable" networks that were completely unfair.
Map memorization is what people are currently used to. Does it make a game smarter? No. Does it make it more fun? For some people it undoubtedly does. For me it only means that after a while I become bored with it.
You're right about one thing. Psychology would change. Instead of running straight to the choke point you know about, you have to find a choke point and then wonder if maybe your opponent may have found a different way in. Every time through it's a whole new game.
When I state I don't play anymore because people only ever want to play on the same maps, I'm basically stating that I'm bored with it. I know where the power-ups are. I know where the choke points are. The only thrill left at that point is if my opponent is actually better than me. When I stopped playing I was frequently accused of using an aim-bot. I never did. I was just good.
I would also say that tennis is boring for pretty much the same reason. The field is same every match, the only excitement comes from an opponent who is challenging.
A FPS where the map was different each and every match? Now here's a new challenge every time. Even if your opponent isn't as good as you, you also have to play against the terrain. In my opinion it ups the skill required to play effectively. It also means that pure twitch alone doesn't guarantee a win. A team that can identify and use terrain quickly and effectively can beat a team that can't.
"The avalanch has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." -Kosh
God you guys just get off on a tangent don't you?
These are not randomly generated maps. They are not procedural. The idea is actually that there is one base map which can have 14 different states depending on lots of different factors.
This type of map would then, in my opinion, make memorization even more important. There are certain areas of the map that are blocked off and certain areas that are opened up depending upon factors like CP ownership.
This is not procedural. It is not done to "balance the game" so that new players are more even keeled with older players who have wrote memorized the level.
RTFA.
Random maps are good for single player, but are totaly useless for multiplayer. You're competing with other humans, not with the game itself, so being able to take advantage of the time you've invested into studying the maps is nice. They're not adding anything useful, in fact, they're removing something useful from the game. Of course, for single player it's just the opposite.
The memorization is the prerequisite for playing the *real* game
No, you're just being closed mined about it. What the game is simply changes. As for the skills you mentioned above, they all still play in to a random map:
1. Twitch
It's an FPS, this will always be part of the game. If anything, the randomness is going to emphasize this further. It takes little in the way of quick reaction to fire a rocket at a known location when you see the enemy. On the other hand, if you don't know where that enemy is going to come from, it's going to take a lot of speed and accuracy to get the first shot off.
2. Map control
Again, not gone at all. You will still need to control the map, you'll just have to learn how to do it on the fly. Yes, this means that you won't have the well developed strategies which come about from well known maps. But ignoring your terrain will still be fatal. What it does mean is that you will have to be more adaptable. You will have to find and control choke points, not just rush them. Also, the sniping camper will be in for a lot more trouble when someone discovers an easy way to him.
3. Enemy prediction
This one will be diminished a bit. You won't know what the enemy is doing, because there won't be several well hashed out tactics that each side uses every time. you will, instead, have to figure this out each time. There will still be base assumptions, it's still an FPS, and there will still be certain objectives (assuming non-deathmatch play). This seems like a good thing to me. I've spent too many hours playing the exact same map, with both sides using the exact same tactic, the result coming out as much to luck as anything else.
4. Self unpredictability
It's a random map, this should be a playground of unpredictability.
The problem isn't the idea, it's just that you are stuck in the "memorize and own the map" mentality. The game will be different, no doubt, but just discarding it out of hand because it's not what you are used to is just dumb.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
"I stopped playing FPS' because I was bored with the maps. People played the same maps over and over and over and over. It was always a mad rush to the same known locations. While that can be fun too, after a while I need some variety."
That's prolly why TF classic, quake3 and CS were so unpopular.. oh wait.
I see it as another attempt at Valve saying "how can we "improve" this already established franchise", unfortunately improving for valve means splitting the fan base and decimating a popular game.
I played the original TF when it came out, and was actually in a clan with Robin Walker (TE), so I'd been waiting for TF2 for quite some time.
It was supposed to come out for quake 2, and never happened. It was supposed to come out for Half Life, but instead we got TFC, which was such a far cry from the old Quake 1 gameplay that it seemed horrible. TFC was supposed to be a stopgap for 12 months until TF2 was finished. It still never came.
TF2 was supposed to be what BF2 is now, but from the recent screenshots etc I have seen, it is just back to the old TF with better graphics and a different game engine. They even have a damn 2fort5 clone in there. No vision in this game what so ever, and it is going to be nothing like what they billed it as when they announced its development. Recycling a quake 1 game is boring guys, and you got beaten to the punch by EA with the battlefield series.
Honestly Robin, when you scaled back to a remake of the original TF, you should have just given it up. Very disappointing after almost a decade of delays.
According to TFA, the maps will just have different routes with a random amount on or off. It's like having a house, locking random rooms, and calling it "randomly generated". While it will provide some variation, the player will memorize the house and then just need to memorize which rooms are on and off on a per game basis.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
you need to pick up ET man, that shit is bonkers
So....what they're saying is that it's Canalzone, with different flag points randomized and doors/portals that are randomly open/closed. Woo. I'm excited.
-Styopa
good ol robin walker, real Australian hero
10 years, and the TF1 community is still going strong. Visit www.customtf.com and download everything you need for free, and you can hop on a server immediately and start playing again.
There's actually been a lot of development in Quake1 these days. FTEQuake (with shaders and new particle effects) looks like a modern FPS, and is fully compatible with all the old Quakeworld servers and clients.
"When I state I don't play anymore because people only ever want to play on the same maps"
That's what I love about the UT series - when 99 and 2003/2004 were going strong you could download a new, high quality, fan-made map every single night.
This feature has been in the source engine for awhile. In fact it is used on 1 map for Counter-Strike Source. On the map cs_Havana, there are 3 routes from the CT spawn to the Hostages. On this map there are 6 choke points that may or may not be closed always allowing at least 1 path to the objective. Funny thing is this map is rarely played, and this feature is somewhat un-noticed by the players.
Granted what they are going for seems a little more ambitious for TF2, but feature like that are what internet based FPS's need to progress and become better. TF has also been one of the few FPS's that truly utilize height in map making, something that is lacking in most CS maps...
---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
As far as I'm concerned, eliminating the blind rush to see who can get the super weapon/power up first is a good thing.
Have you ever actually played TFC (or even TF?) There are no "super weapon[s]" or "power up[s]" that you can pick up. You spawn with all the weapons you can ever have (barring kit change) depending on the class you chose, and anything you might pick up (armor, ammo, grnades) is always in your base, in the spawn/resupply room, which is usually protected by ceiling turrets against enemy invaders. TFC != quake X deathmatch.
I do happen to think this is a good idea, but I don't think it will really reduce the "advantage" those familiar with the maps. It may slow it down a bit, but there's a finite (and reasonably small, like 16ish) number of possibilities, so eventually the hardcore folks will learn the ins and outs of every combo as well as they know 2fort and the "pwning of the noobs" will continue unabated.
everything in moderation
... and play it alone or with the lame bots wondering why no server had it in rotation.
everything in moderation
I absolutely love your .sig. Thank you! Makes me want to do a 'to, too, two' .sig. Maybe a 'there, their, they're' one. You rule.
http://xkcd.com/386/