Underground

MVM Underground RC3 v2

Woozlez

L3: Member
Jul 28, 2010
129
287
Well, we're at alpha 6 now, and there have been quite a few changes.

The .pop file is now a 100% custom normal mission created by UltimentM and edited by me, with quite a few custom bots. This is probably the last alpha version, and after this mission gets tested a bit, I'll be releasing the map into beta and adding 2 advanced missions and 1 expert mission over time.

Please feel free to test it now!
 

Woozlez

L3: Member
Jul 28, 2010
129
287
I have 2 requests that would really help with the finalization of this map. I am currently busy making many minor edits to the map and game logic as well as major changes to the .pop files and all the other crazy work that comes with making an MVM map. Therefore, if someone could help with some minor modeling jobs, it would really take a load off my back.


First off, I have skybox textures that I need applied to skycard models. There are 4 sets of 4 textures that I need applied to 4 separate models as 4 skins. The reason I need models for this is because layering transparency doesn't render well on brushes within the source engine, and also the tree skycards have this nice edging to them that I think you can only get with a texture applied to a model.

If someone feels they're up to the task, I'll send you the .rar of all 32 vtf's and vmt's as well as a specific set of instructions detailing the scaling of each model.

Here's how the full skybox should look:

DeChU.jpg


Secondly, because I've been told that this map needs supports to reinforce that it's underground, It'd really be nice to have a modular truss model to sprinkle throughout. There are already truss details in the skybox I painted, so it really will fit in. 256 x 256 hammer units square with 1024 height (constituting two trusses of 512 height, alternating direction) would be great. Please make sure it matches the coloring and style of the existing truss mineshaft used in Bigrock, and is similar to the design of what you can see in the skybox.

I'm asking you guys for help because I've seen many dedicated modelers working on huge sets of props for maps, and it'd really be great to have that same assistance from the community. I've already had help from 3 different server hosts in testing the map about 10 times so far, and have gotten huge sets of helpful feedback that have drastically improved this map since alpha 1.

If you have any other questions on what needs to be done or how else you might be able to help, just PM me on here or contact me on Steam.
 
Last edited:

Turbo Lover

Fight me under Glasgow Central Station
aa
Feb 15, 2011
333
344
I can't help with any modelling things, but the best place to put in a request for that sutff is in the Models & Textures subforum we have at TF2M. Beyond that you could try contacting a modeller directly, TF2M chat has a couple and the TF2 Emporium would have a lot more.

I can give some feedback on your map after playing it though.

Considering your map is intended to be Normal difficulty, your waves are generally too hard. The first wave isn't too bad, we could handle that relatively well even with only four people, that's the kind of difficulty standard you should aim for across your whole popfile. Wave 2 rather quickly ramped up the difficulty, Giants, with Medics, with mini-crits, with Spies, with infinite cannon fodder is much too difficult at this stage. That said, it was by no means a bad wave and it could definitely work at a Normal difficulty level, so my suggestion is to move it - unchanged - to be either the last or second last wave.

Between waves 3 and 7 I honestly don't remember much, I think wave 3 was easier than wave 2 but none of the waves beyond wave 1 felt like Normal difficulty waves. Decoy is a great example of what Normal difficulty missions should entail - although your map is a bit bigger than Decoy, and should upscale to account for that - it sets a pretty good standard for all maps. A few things to note are that the first 2 waves only contain a relatively small number of robots split among a few basic types and nothing else. Wave 3 is just a tank and some Sniper/Spy support. Giants don't show up at all until wave 5. Only in the last 3 waves of Decoy do we start to see interesting combinations of robots emerge - more than half of the mission is used purely to isolate new threats and introduce them to the player, so they can be better prepared to deal with them later when things get a little crazier.

The last wave - while still feeling too difficult for a Normal mission - wasn't bad otherwise until the boss robot spawned. Personally, I think for a Normal difficulty mission a boss robot is out of the question. Continuing from what I said earlier - if Normal difficulty missions are best used to introduce the players to new types of threat, introducing an enemy that will only show up for that wave of that mission as a unique challenge doesn't fit at all. However, if you're determined to keep the boss robot as the final challenge of your map, then I have a few suggestions to bring him down to Normal difficulty. The first is to remove all other robots from the wave. Yes, all. Normal difficulty should be a cakewalk even for players who are only somewhat experienced with MvM, boss robots are generally titanic behemoths who cut bloody swathes through even the most die-hard MvM squads. Give them a chance and make the boss the sole enemy to beat. My other suggestion is to reduce his health by a significant amount. I don't know how much health he currently has, but his health should be around 30-40 thousand. Beyond that, I can't say much, as this wave will play drastically different without any other robots on the field, so further analysis would be required.

For map feedback, I'll say this, it's damn pretty. You wouldn't expect a giant underground cavern to look so good, but that skybox works really well, I feel.

I said it during the test and I'll say it again, but the deathpit with the banana peel seems like it'd be entirely impossible to utilise in any situation. Bomb carriers don't walk past it at all and the doorway to it is so small that it'd be a lot of trouble to get a regular bot in there and impossible to get Giants in.

Lastly, there are a lot of routes, it's true the map layout wasn't so confusing after running around in it for a while, but I like to think I have a good sense of direction and it was still a little daunting those first few waves.

A lot of good work here, looking forward to playing this again.
 
Last edited:

Idolon

they/them
aa
Feb 7, 2008
2,105
6,106
Notes about waves, I was playing heavy

I didn't need to grab anything other than blast and crit resist until about wave 4. Maybe stick some flamey or shooty dudes in earlier.

By the last wave I was pretty much invincible, I had full resistances, full movement speed, and full health regeneration. Could use less money, and/or more powerful robots.

How the robots come in from two distant ends is cool.

We hardly ever used more than the front of the map, or the hatch area. The middle didn't get used often
 

YM

LVL100 YM
aa
Dec 5, 2007
7,135
6,056
You don't need the .bsp.bak in the download. that's a backup file made by pakrat, it's only there incase pakrat fucks up your file.
 

Woozlez

L3: Member
Jul 28, 2010
129
287
Here's what I have for the names for my missions on mvm_underground:

Normal: Unarming Undercity
Intermediate 1: Unhinged Undertaking
Intermediate 2: Undented Uproar
Advanced 1: Unary Ultimatum
Advanced 2: Unrestful Update
Expert: Utterly Decimated

I've been working on a Normal and a single Advanced mission. I could use some help coming up with the other missions though. If you would like to help make the other missions, or would like to test the current missions, please message me.

EDIT: Replacing most of the names thanks to Dr. Element (Instead of being based in the letter U and on robots)

Normal: Subterranean Survival
Intermediate 2: Burial Brawl
Advanced 1: Cave-in Catastrophe

Need help with the other 3 though.
 
Last edited:

evanonline

L420: High Member
Mar 15, 2009
485
273
I wouldn't mind helping with pop files, I really like the map.

Don't really have much to add other than that I really enjoyed playing it, even if at the time I was around to play, the waves were a little...muddled in terms of the difficulty curve?
 

Potato Uno

L1: Registered
Jun 14, 2014
17
9
The flanking doesn't seem to be working properly all the time, but otherwise the map is pretty good!
 

avi9526

L1: Registered
Mar 21, 2013
2
0
Hi, some nice map you have made. The only issue that bother me in it is the fact that on my server I have jetpack and hook enabled (hook make you feel like spiderman on this map), and most of buildings have some invisible walls over them, which block any movement. Didn't you think about removing this walls? Or it will decrease a performance?
 
Last edited:

Prolyfic

L5: Dapper Member
Dec 19, 2014
220
22
I'm coming to your server !

Just let me download the map ._.
 
Last edited:

YM

LVL100 YM
aa
Dec 5, 2007
7,135
6,056
Played today. Very nice.

Were models using vertex lighting? Felt like they weren't in some places (most notably the big rocks in the ceiling above the main vista)
 

Woozlez

L3: Member
Jul 28, 2010
129
287
I never turned off vertex lighting on any prop, but I did not use any of the lighting compile options you've discussed in your nodraw.net article. I didn't use -staticproppolys because I didn't notice any wonky shadows from props. I didn't use -textureshadows because I only have like 2 fence props in the map, and they weren't causing any serious shadows. I didn't use -staticproplighting because "This will disable info_lighting entities on static props that don't use bump maps!" - and I use quite a few info_lighting entities because I have rocks embedded in the ground.
 

YM

LVL100 YM
aa
Dec 5, 2007
7,135
6,056
-staticproplighting is supposed to remove the need for info_lighting. Because each vertex of the model is lit independently, so the ones in the ground are dark yes, but the ones above the ground are shaded correctly.

Stick your info_lighting entities into a visgroup so you can hide them, then give those three options a go. If you want to go back to non-vertex lighting for any props, all you have to do is disable the option in the prop, remove that prop's info_lighting from the hidden visgroup if it had one and viola, that prop will be exactly as it was before.

I've always felt the place these compile options make one of the biggest differences is with rock models. They're so large, lighting them from a single point almost always leaves part of the model looking wrong.
 

Woozlez

L3: Member
Jul 28, 2010
129
287
I've tried multiple times but -staticproplighting and -staticproppolys are causing fullbright for me, with no errors in the compile log. - I put them in the $light_exe line in the compile: "-both -game $gamedir $path\$file -staticproppolys -staticproplighting"
 

Woozlez

L3: Member
Jul 28, 2010
129
287
Well, I'm going to wait until I have another good reason to update to rc3 before fixing the lighting up that way. I had tried it after -game, but before $light_exe, and then after $light_exe. I didn't try before -game, because I didn't want to wait another few hours. Blegh.
 

YM

LVL100 YM
aa
Dec 5, 2007
7,135
6,056
Yeah no need for a small release, it looks fine as it is to the untrained eye.
For reference the format is: $light_exe <all vrad's commands> -game $gamedir $path\$file