English Mobster
L6: Sharp Member
- Jul 10, 2011
- 355
- 299
Pssh. Rocket jumping. Just use a trigger_gravity and set the gravity to -1.
Build Around The Track
- Thread starter littleedge
- Start date
Oh, and sergis. Out of your 9 designs:
1) Conforms to prediction 1 and has an LoS 3,000 units long
2) Has an LoS over 3,000 units long
3) Conforms to prediction 1 and has an LoS 3,000 units long
4) Has 2 LoS over 3,000 units long
5) Has 2 LoS over 4,000 units long (That's 33% longer than the longest LoS currently in TF2).
6) Has 2 LoS over 4,000 units long
7) Has a LoS over 4,000 units long
8) Has a LoS over 4,000 units long
9) Has a LoS over 4,000 units long.
A 3,000 unit LoS is only seen twice in TF2, at the start of badwater with an FoV of ~10-20 degrees and does not overlook more than 512 units of pl track, and on upward for BLU looking at the rickity wooden platform before cp 3 which sees little to no direct enemy activity (the odd pyro airblasting BLU into the deathpit). Whilst your LoS are of 3k or more and directly overlook the payload's track, usually from the front (or at least from the side for +1,000 units).
You should perhaps do a little research on this matter. By all means, implement one of these designs. Is all i'm saying is they're problematic; as will be most alternatives to the predictions i created. Your 9 designs either conform to my predictions or are largely inappropriate which only emphasises my point that this track unfortunately stifles creativity.
1) Conforms to prediction 1 and has an LoS 3,000 units long
2) Has an LoS over 3,000 units long
3) Conforms to prediction 1 and has an LoS 3,000 units long
4) Has 2 LoS over 3,000 units long
5) Has 2 LoS over 4,000 units long (That's 33% longer than the longest LoS currently in TF2).
6) Has 2 LoS over 4,000 units long
7) Has a LoS over 4,000 units long
8) Has a LoS over 4,000 units long
9) Has a LoS over 4,000 units long.
A 3,000 unit LoS is only seen twice in TF2, at the start of badwater with an FoV of ~10-20 degrees and does not overlook more than 512 units of pl track, and on upward for BLU looking at the rickity wooden platform before cp 3 which sees little to no direct enemy activity (the odd pyro airblasting BLU into the deathpit). Whilst your LoS are of 3k or more and directly overlook the payload's track, usually from the front (or at least from the side for +1,000 units).
You should perhaps do a little research on this matter. By all means, implement one of these designs. Is all i'm saying is they're problematic; as will be most alternatives to the predictions i created. Your 9 designs either conform to my predictions or are largely inappropriate which only emphasises my point that this track unfortunately stifles creativity.
Last edited:
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,874
- 1,258
as you might have noticed, i only drew the immediate area around that corner. los can be shortened outside of it should it be a problem. you can simply do penisrock spam ffs and be fine. since the drawn area's dimensions are under 2k, all your potential sightlines come from assumption that areas on both sides of that turn will be empty.
also i didnt draw to exact grid, so there might be holes in the drawing that arent there in the actual design. with non-empty areas before and after that turn and the designs done with exact angles they're supposed to have instead of exactly like in a vague paint drawing drawn at 3AM, los will not be a problem.
so out of 9 designs, 2 are similar to the most obvious solution and 7 only have big los if you decide to make your map a completely empty area. you know, that doesn't sound that bad at all.
and let's not forget that breaking problematic los is not the only way to fix them. there's plenty of long sightlines that play just fine.
i've done more than research. i've had a goddamn playtest and it went just fine (except for ALERTalertALERT and slight problem with correct blu spawnpoint orientation
).
on a side note, take a look at top posters in this thread. top 1 is littleedge as he should be since he runs the show. top 2 (after this post) is shared between one person that posts screenshots, works on the map and proves the layout to be fine and another person who keeps criticising, criticising and criticising (and offering years donator to people who will make the map his way).
it's bloody obvious you don't like the track. but, surprisingly, there are people who are fine with it. there are people who can work with it. there are people who already work with it. there is even a map ready already that has survived a playtest.
you can theorycraft about the track being unpossible to work with all you want, but when there are people actually doing it, it's like arguing that gravity pulls you up instead of down - obvious facts are disproving the theory. you keep telling us "its bad its bad its bad". well if you are such an experienced mapper that has done his research, why don't you join the contest and show your knowledge and impress us all by making an awesome map out of apparently a crap track instead of sitting back and criticizing everything? and if you can't do it, that does not mean everyone else can't as well.
cliffs: you don't like the track. we get it. now kindly let us work and instead of looking for reasons to call the track bad, look for ways to make it good.
also i didnt draw to exact grid, so there might be holes in the drawing that arent there in the actual design. with non-empty areas before and after that turn and the designs done with exact angles they're supposed to have instead of exactly like in a vague paint drawing drawn at 3AM, los will not be a problem.
so out of 9 designs, 2 are similar to the most obvious solution and 7 only have big los if you decide to make your map a completely empty area. you know, that doesn't sound that bad at all.
and let's not forget that breaking problematic los is not the only way to fix them. there's plenty of long sightlines that play just fine.
i've done more than research. i've had a goddamn playtest and it went just fine (except for ALERTalertALERT and slight problem with correct blu spawnpoint orientation
).on a side note, take a look at top posters in this thread. top 1 is littleedge as he should be since he runs the show. top 2 (after this post) is shared between one person that posts screenshots, works on the map and proves the layout to be fine and another person who keeps criticising, criticising and criticising (and offering years donator to people who will make the map his way).
it's bloody obvious you don't like the track. but, surprisingly, there are people who are fine with it. there are people who can work with it. there are people who already work with it. there is even a map ready already that has survived a playtest.
you can theorycraft about the track being unpossible to work with all you want, but when there are people actually doing it, it's like arguing that gravity pulls you up instead of down - obvious facts are disproving the theory. you keep telling us "its bad its bad its bad". well if you are such an experienced mapper that has done his research, why don't you join the contest and show your knowledge and impress us all by making an awesome map out of apparently a crap track instead of sitting back and criticizing everything? and if you can't do it, that does not mean everyone else can't as well.
cliffs: you don't like the track. we get it. now kindly let us work and instead of looking for reasons to call the track bad, look for ways to make it good.
Grazr, I'm going to have to politely ask you to stop posting about the track, you have shown your point. All I see happening now is you trying to undermine the contest by excessively proving that the track Littleedge made is bad and will provide no variation in maps. I have already seen some early shots of peoples maps, and they don't look the same to me at all. PM me if you have any questions.
Grazr, can i ask why are you still here, in this thread?
It is obvious the track is going to stay like it is and it is fine really, instead trying to actually go out there and find creative solutions to problems with track (what this whole contest is about, you get track, and you get to be creative) you constantly say this track is shit and explain how and why BASED ON TRACK WITH NOTHING AROUND IT
Don't like the track? Don't enter the contest.
Simple as that.
It is obvious the track is going to stay like it is and it is fine really, instead trying to actually go out there and find creative solutions to problems with track (what this whole contest is about, you get track, and you get to be creative) you constantly say this track is shit and explain how and why BASED ON TRACK WITH NOTHING AROUND IT
Don't like the track? Don't enter the contest.
Simple as that.
I was only replying to sergis. Don't worry, that was going to be my last post as i had lost interest and only intended to explain properly why i thought the track wasn't appropriate. Several people seem to also agree so i'm not just being argumentative for the sakes of being argumentative. I know the track isn't going to be modified and the post wasn't to continue the arguement, only explain myself.
Considering all the sarcastic and trollish posts in this thread i'm surprised my information filled reply to sergis alone was infracted.
Considering all the sarcastic and trollish posts in this thread i'm surprised my information filled reply to sergis alone was infracted.
Last edited:
Curse you photoshop
@Aly... oh thats mean.
@Doom.... High resolution curve?
@Doom.... High resolution curve?
Gotta give you credit there. Neat idea to get around rules. However yeah, don't.
purequaternion
L3: Member
- May 19, 2009
- 101
- 64
Makes me wonder about what it'd be like if we ran some of the other pl maps backwards. It'd probably be a horrible disaster, moreso than when amusement parks run coasters backwards.
Ritz is awesome and donated $30 to the Prize pool. Now first place gets $30, second gets $20, and third gets $10. If anybody else would like to add to it, send me a message on Steam (preferably) or send me a PM here.
- Apr 29, 2008
- 1,068
- 709
Yeah I won't, I read the rules several times and it's pretty clear it'd be a violation. Shame since it seems to be the more logical way around to have the track. Still, I guess that just adds to the challenge.
Godslayer57
aa
- Sep 1, 2009
- 573
- 323
wow that 22 degree of track was a pain in the *ss to get the path_tracks down for....30 path_tracks were needed for this...
If permitted someone should release a base version with path_track for people who are lazy or confunded.
If permitted someone should release a base version with path_track for people who are lazy or confunded.