2fort Revamp
- Thread starter Terr
- Start date
GJ, you made a shitty map decent. 
I like the green lights, feels cool.
I like the green lights, feels cool.
- Jul 31, 2009
- 1,590
- 410
Can you please clarify exactly what you mean by this, dear sir?
Any player dumb enough to believe either that
(A) the map is an official one by Valve
or
(B) the map isn't a modification of the original 2fort
... that type of person's cluelessness isn't my problem. (Blame the parents. Or videogames.)
And if I didn't say I was involved making it, who the heck should I put down as "Author"? Obviously I can't leave it blank (even if various online forms allowed it) and having it be blank or "Valve" means you'd just start complaining that I was somehow trying to mislead people that it's official.
Terr said:
So you want the warm/cool lights embedded in the ceiling or walls, I take it? I would point out that TF2 stock maps don't have gloomy rocky underwater tunnels much either.
I could do yellow glow-sticks, but that just seems weird. (Esp. for the time period.) Players might think they're anlion grubs or something. Unfortunately the positioning doesn't make much sense for having some sort of "skylight" shafts.
Last edited:
AntonJ3000
I am inactive and make horrible maps
- Oct 29, 2008
- 401
- 90
Instead of doing
[HvC]Terr - Mapper
Valve Software - Original Map SDK provider
Do something like
[HvC]Terr - Minor edits on the map
Valve Software - Mapper and Original SDK Provider
- Jul 31, 2009
- 1,590
- 410
Look, at some point I think it boils down to this: I'm not going to run in circles futilely trying to gain your approval over the little details of how the map is presented, because I don't think it's really possible to please you: You're dead set against the entire project on some quasi-doctrinal level.
However, if you have any useful criticism, even if negative (ex: "Your clipping planes suck in room X") then I'm certainly interested.
However, if you have any useful criticism, even if negative (ex: "Your clipping planes suck in room X") then I'm certainly interested.
Last edited:
- Jul 31, 2009
- 1,590
- 410
OK, so I've been having second-thoughts about the current water-ramps. They make the bridge pretty superfluous, because you can just jump in the water and then climb out. I'd like to maintain a way to leave the water without making the bridge a less-attractive route for crossing from one side to another.
So copied from the [ame=http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10977557#post10977557]Steam Forums post[/ame], what do you guys think about this? I am deliberately trying to fashion a way-out which is less convenient. (Both in terms of distance traveled, and also in terms of being able to defend yourself against attack.)
It has the benefit of seeming at least plausible for a canal/river construct. It could also be decorated as the destroyed pilings of an earlier bridge.
Someone suggested running planks across, which I may do--it allows steeper inclines than horizontal jumping--in which case I can eliminate the center pillar and move the right-hand pillar further from the wall.
So copied from the [ame=http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10977557#post10977557]Steam Forums post[/ame], what do you guys think about this? I am deliberately trying to fashion a way-out which is less convenient. (Both in terms of distance traveled, and also in terms of being able to defend yourself against attack.)
It has the benefit of seeming at least plausible for a canal/river construct. It could also be decorated as the destroyed pilings of an earlier bridge.
Someone suggested running planks across, which I may do--it allows steeper inclines than horizontal jumping--in which case I can eliminate the center pillar and move the right-hand pillar further from the wall.
Last edited:
- Jul 31, 2009
- 1,590
- 410
OK, a [ame="http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10986956&postcount=272"]new iteration[/ame] for the "more dangerous and risky than before but still usable way out of the water" goal. I'm going for the look of old bridge pilings.
Thoughts?
Before and After. If you look closely, you'll see I expanded the central area by about 64 units in each direction, although there's still a bit more touch-up work to do. Because of this, the area has more open space thatn before, even with the pilings.
Another angle.A small nailed-in piece of board makes it much easier to go up the ramp (you can't go too far and fall off) and prevents people on the other side from using it as another bridge to keep their toes dry.
Thoughts?
Monster Killer
L1: Registered
- Nov 24, 2009
- 49
- 5
I thought you were not allowed to simply edit valve maps then post them here?
Though some of the changes look alright and in my point of view some of them would make game play slightly better.
Though some of the changes look alright and in my point of view some of them would make game play slightly better.
They are allowed, they're just generally frowned upon.
absurdistof
aa
- Aug 10, 2009
- 1,240
- 399
- Apr 19, 2009
- 4,460
- 1,724
Why was this thread revived? :E
- Jul 31, 2009
- 1,590
- 410
Taking a break from PackBSP, gonna try to get B3 out the door soon.
- Major initiative to decrease file-size, mainly by disabling vertex lighting for everything that doesn't need it, and doing a bunch of lighting-origin fine tuning.
- Re-did the RED tower as brushwork to solve annoying lighting artifacts. It doesn't charmingly lean to the side anymore, but I doubt many people noticed it in the first place.
- Yet another attempt at good "water ramps".
- More light and decorative landmarks down in the underwater tunnel to help players orient themselves.
- Jul 31, 2009
- 1,590
- 410
I think folks on TF2maps might like this, atypically because I am working off of a stock map, since it makes for an apples/apples comparison to the original 2fort.
The B2 -> B3 optimization involved turning off vertex-lighting on all static props except a few that really needed it, and using lighting_target for the rest. (Lots of iterative VRAD+cordon work to get it just right.)
The B2 -> B3 optimization involved turning off vertex-lighting on all static props except a few that really needed it, and using lighting_target for the rest. (Lots of iterative VRAD+cordon work to get it just right.)
Last edited:
Thingy Person
L1: Registered
- Sep 6, 2009
- 45
- 5
Adoption by whom? Not the hundreds of 24/7 2fort servers, because the players there love the map because it's a deathmatch. Snipers, spies, soldiers and demomen alike can have some random fragging practice while pyros, engineers and medics learn the game. For the server owners who like balanced maps, why would they install a modification of 2fort, which they've likely entirely abolished, rather than a whole new map, aside from the "wow" effect of playing on an acceptable version of 2fort?