- Jul 15, 2016
- 292
- 196
I'm only having a basic structuring to allow people to understand each others designs.For most people its bad practice to draw a map in 2d. It makes them forget about height variety and often results in very flat maps. Only when you realy know what you are doing should you do this. And many times this is only to verify wether an idea would fit. You should try to get a 3d map shape from the start. Blocking it in hammer using dev textures (And a drawing to assist you idea) can be much more efficient.
Even worse is graph paper which sets a scale. Many times you are just trying to match the paper rather than actualy look at the scale while making it in hammer. You quickly over/underscale a map because you blindly make each square worth 64,128 or 256 (while maybe it should have been 96,192, 80 or whatever). Having no graph would force you to test wether an area actualy fits and allows you to scale an area to a state it works. And this test is crucial.
From all drawings of a map, i never even managed to get it into a decent state. Yet with blind building i at least would get the scaling correct.
A concept thread is fine, but forcing certain rules on drawing can be a bad thing.
For most people its bad practice to draw a map in 2d. It makes them forget about height variety and often results in very flat maps. Only when you realy know what you are doing should you do this. And many times this is only to verify wether an idea would fit. You should try to get a 3d map shape from the start. Blocking it in hammer using dev textures (And a drawing to assist you idea) can be much more efficient.
Even worse is graph paper which sets a scale. Many times you are just trying to match the paper rather than actualy look at the scale while making it in hammer. You quickly over/underscale a map because you blindly make each square worth 64,128 or 256 (while maybe it should have been 96,192, 80 or whatever). Having no graph would force you to test wether an area actualy fits and allows you to scale an area to a state it works. And this test is crucial.
From all drawings of a map, i never even managed to get it into a decent state. Yet with blind building i at least would get the scaling correct.
A concept thread is fine, but forcing certain rules on drawing can be a bad thing.
oops lolDude, you got a typo in a thread name "Map concpet thread"
For most people its bad practice to draw a map in 2d. It makes them forget about height variety and often results in very flat maps. Only when you realy know what you are doing should you do this. And many times this is only to verify wether an idea would fit. You should try to get a 3d map shape from the start. Blocking it in hammer using dev textures (And a drawing to assist you idea) can be much more efficient.
I wasnt stating they are bad when you know what to do. The problem i stated is that many (especialy new) mappers dont know it and create huge flaws that way.2D layouts are fine, if it works for the designer - I used them, and still do for most things that require that type of layout design.
Many mappers before they even draw something already somewhat built the area they want to make in their mind. They just write it down to remember and to check if their idea would fit. Graph paper is ideal to keep the measurements equal to how you would map it.Graph paper is aditionally OK because you set the squares to be whatever the heck you want. They don't need to be 64, 128, 256, whatever.
I draw all my maps for that same reason. But i dont use any gridpaper and do a very rough shape to only settle the idea. More like a 'i need to remember this'.The goal of most 2D sketches is to get a general idea of the layout, and thus how it plays. It's not a scaled architectural blueprint.
Why are people respectfully disagreeing with thisthis thread is getting way more deep than I expected
I only use grid paper to allow myself to create more easily understandable sketches.I wasnt stating they are bad when you know what to do. The problem i stated is that many (especialy new) mappers dont know it and create huge flaws that way.
A prime example is that they only consider 2 height levels (Sometimes 3) yet if you look at many good maps a single area can feature like 5 relevant height levels with only a diffirence of 64HU between each level. This is hard to draw on paper and quickly forgotten.
EDIT: and yes, its not vital to draw, but when you know what you do. It wont become a flaw.
Many mappers before they even draw something already somewhat built the area they want to make in their mind. They just write it down to remember and to check if their idea would fit. Graph paper is ideal to keep the measurements equal to how you would map it.
I draw all my maps for that same reason. But i dont use any gridpaper and do a very rough shape to only settle the idea. More like a 'i need to remember this'.
But the warning about quickly making flaws is still valid. And its worth to mention the commonly made mistakes.
I wasnt stating they are bad when you know what to do. The problem i stated is that many (especialy new) mappers dont know it and create huge flaws that way.
A prime example is that they only consider 2 height levels (Sometimes 3) yet if you look at many good maps a single area can feature like 5 relevant height levels with only a diffirence of 64HU between each level. This is hard to draw on paper and quickly forgotten.
EDIT: and yes, its not vital to draw, but when you know what you do. It wont become a flaw.
Many mappers before they even draw something already somewhat built the area they want to make in their mind. They just write it down to remember and to check if their idea would fit. Graph paper is ideal to keep the measurements equal to how you would map it.
I draw all my maps for that same reason. But i dont use any gridpaper and do a very rough shape to only settle the idea. More like a 'i need to remember this'.
But the warning about quickly making flaws is still valid. And its worth to mention the commonly made mistakes.
Why are people respectfully disagreeing with this
I'm just saying I wasnt expecting a serious conversation to come out of this
It's kinda hard to tell a lot from a top down drawing. The only thing I can think of/see is that people may not enjoy being spawned, and then having to do a 180 degree turn to get to the enemy. Maybe rotate it 90 degrees counter clock wise so when players walk out, they have an even choice of whether to go to defend their goal or attack the enemy's. I know some other maps do make you turn a lot, but I find them rather annoying to do any roll outs on.anyway here is a sketch I made for a pastime map.
Please tell me your guy's thoughts
It's kinda hard to tell a lot from a top down drawing.
I feel like the opening area on the map does not have very much height variationOne thing I find useful is to put stairs, with an arrow pointing in the direction that's up. You can also do this on sloped ground that you will do with a ramp or displacements. If you don't have quite a few arrows on the page, it can be quite a good sign that the map is lacking height variation, or at least easy routes between heights. I might even write the number of units along side the arrow to give me an idea of how tall the slope will go. I might even just write "small" or "large" along side if I don't have an actual unit number in my mind.
I find the arrow tells me what area is the high ground much easier than trying to look at a design and deciding what would probably be the high ground.
For example, an idea that I had for a payload map:
I also tend to shade areas - blu is blu rescan room, orange is sloped ground, black is inaccessible roof tops.