Second Map, but...

TZK203

L1: Registered
Dec 28, 2012
15
6
I look around at the screenshots in this forums, and I am always irked when people do not stick to the standard 128 unit structure. I don't know why.

As such, I am not really sure how to construct buildings without falling to this trap. I mean, what's the point of doing things in less than perhaps 64 units?

Also, what's a good walking distance in units that balances out? It seems a lot of Decompiled VALVe maps make use of 384 x 768 or less.
 

GPuzzle

L9: Fashionable Member
Feb 27, 2012
638
414
Because the 128x128 walls are thick as fuck. I use 32x32 and people still think it's a bit too big. So they thin it up. The wooden walls from Badlands? 16 Units thick. The brick walls from Well? 32. And also: notice how most of the walking areas make several turns. You don't make Snipers too OP by doing it, but, let's say you have an A/D linear map (Gorge style). When BLU is capturing A, RED has to walk a lot to protect the point. When BLU captures it, they have to walk a lot too, giving RED time to set up defences, yet Snipers can't fire from like, a thousand miles away in Gorge, can they?
 

Seba

DR. BIG FUCKER, PHD
aa
Jun 9, 2009
2,364
2,728
What Gpuzzle said (32 for concrete/etc, 16 for wood) is pretty much the accepted standard. Sure, you can differ from that, but it will look weird once you detail it - no practical concrete wall is the real-world equivalent of 64 units, unless you're making a bunker or something. I'm not really sure what you mean by walking distance, though. From where to where? Balances out what?
 

TZK203

L1: Registered
Dec 28, 2012
15
6
What Gpuzzle said (32 for concrete/etc, 16 for wood) is pretty much the accepted standard. Sure, you can differ from that, but it will look weird once you detail it - no practical concrete wall is the real-world equivalent of 64 units, unless you're making a bunker or something. I'm not really sure what you mean by walking distance, though. From where to where? Balances out what?

Mostly for Soldiers and Heavies, since they have one of the slowest movement speeds--soldiers can only compensate with rocket jumps.
 

Deodorant

L6: Sharp Member
Oct 31, 2011
263
214
What Gpuzzle said (32 for concrete/etc, 16 for wood) is pretty much the accepted standard. Sure, you can differ from that, but it will look weird once you detail it - no practical concrete wall is the real-world equivalent of 64 units, unless you're making a bunker or something. I'm not really sure what you mean by walking distance, though. From where to where? Balances out what?
8 is a pretty common thickness for wood as well, at least on upper floors and smaller buildings. I think 8 is the standard for metal walls as well, but I might be talking out of my ass here. Really though, wall thickness can vary quite a lot depending on the architecture; flying around in Mountainlab I found a 64-unit wood wall and an 8-unit concrete wall.

TZK, I advice you to simply open official maps in Hammer and look at how they've done things. As long as you know what you're looking for, it's a great way to figure stuff out.
 

TZK203

L1: Registered
Dec 28, 2012
15
6
not to be a cunt, but if you're only on your second map, you're in no position to be irked by other mappers' mapping habits

Thanks, but you're not being helpful.

I'm irked due to how they do things on the grid.
 

TZK203

L1: Registered
Dec 28, 2012
15
6
I'm still trying to figure out what you're getting at here.

Are you 'irked' at people making entire building widths/heights/depths that don't measure up in 128 unit chunks, or the actual wall thickness?

It's particularly more occurring during maps like Gravelpit. The height, depth, and length of the walls do not fit any 64 unit grid-fashion. I suppose I can deal with the width, but it really seems odd as hell as to why those mappers decided 432 was a great height for their buildings, for example.

I don't quite understand why they do this, but meh.

I'll add that it might have been the height that irked me, because a lot of dev textured maps seem to have strange amount of height units.
 
Last edited:

Bloodhound

L6: Sharp Member
Jan 3, 2011
316
489
I suppose I can deal with the width, but it really seems odd as hell as to why those mappers decided 432 was a great height for their buildings, for example.

I don't quite understand why they do this, but meh.

Because fun can't been calculated by mathematics.

Code:
432 = 3*128 + 64 - 16

seems legit to me.

If 448 or 512 just didn't feel right.
Why not use 432?
Defining game play spaces just by a specific amount of units to get fun seems awkward.

I think, that I don't really get the point of your question.
 
Aug 23, 2008
404
380
It's particularly more occurring during maps like Gravelpit. The height, depth, and length of the walls do not fit any 64 unit grid-fashion. I suppose I can deal with the width, but it really seems odd as hell as to why those mappers decided 432 was a great height for their buildings, for example.

I don't quite understand why they do this, but meh.

I'll add that it might have been the height that irked me, because a lot of dev textured maps seem to have strange amount of height units.

https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/TF2/Team_Fortress_2_Mapper's_Reference

specifically, note the section on soldier rocket jump heights. More specifically, note that trying to jump to the top of a building that exactly matches up with the rocket jump height is awkward as hell, and moving it down by 16 units or so makes it much easier to land on the roof.
 
Last edited:

Seba

DR. BIG FUCKER, PHD
aa
Jun 9, 2009
2,364
2,728
I know how you feel, TZK - Having to move walls around by 8 or 16 units drives me mad because then the space won't fit perfectly within whatever grid size I want it to fit on for no particular reason. Thing is, OCD like this isn't always useful when mapping. Like Scorpio said, there are several set-in-stone measurements that mappers have to account for and deal with. My best advice to you is just learn to deal with it - if imperfect multiples of 64 are your biggest worry atm, save up your rage for all the crashes, random entity errors, optimization, leaks, brush limits, displacement errors, broken instances, lighting bugs, and basically Source being shit in general.

That being said, let's keep this discussion polite (this is to everyone) - before making a post, think of what it adds to the conversation. If it adds nothing, don't post it. If it's constructive but may be rude, edit it so nobody will get mad. If you can't find a way to not offend anyone but absolutely must post whatever it is you're posting, add a disclaimer about it so at least the target of your comment will know not to get too offended or fight back.
 

GPuzzle

L9: Fashionable Member
Feb 27, 2012
638
414
https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/TF2/Team_Fortress_2_Mapper's_Reference

specifically, note the section on soldier rocket jump heights. More specifically, note that trying to jump to the top of a building that exactly matches up with the rocket jump height is awkward as hell, and moving it down by 16 units or so makes it much easier to land on the roof.

After playing a bunch of MGE, I can say something that is quite interesting about GPit Spire: a rocket jumping soldier has the advantage, even if he falls, he probably will be able to shoot a rocket at the player on the platform.
What causes this to be interesting is that, due to the platform being small and rockets having blast damage, players can knock enemy players capturing the point off the point and allowing the defending team to buy some time (from 15 seconds - demo defense - to 2 minutes and a half - level 3 sentry) and still win the game. That doesn't usually show up in Badlands Spire, and I still have to search why.