City Map: yay/Nay?

[tyler]

I can't even be bothered to continue reading this thread after this guy said he understands TF2 balance and design and thinks a map proven to work in Far Cry 2 will do fine in TF2 as a result.

OK. Alright. Great.

 

[Sergis]

i say let him do his thing so people can learn from his mistakes

 

[Sel]

If anything is clear from your screenshots, it's that pretty much everyone here knows more about tf2 level design than you do. Shut up and listen and maybe you'll give yourself a chance to learn something.

 

[Trotim]

Well, make it to a1 and we can test if the map works.
The worst that could happen is you learn it doesn't so you can adjust it appropriately, and we'll see if the sightlines are fine and how much TF2 differs from most other FPS nowadays

Still...

I said in the original post that Ive been playing Tf2 since day 1. That means I already have a firm grasp on class mechanics.

Not automatically true if 99% of players are any indication

And complete lack of layout design? The map's layout was played hundreds of thousands of times on Far Cry 2.

That's a different game. So instead of designing a map for TF2, you're making a remake of a "popular" Far Cry 2 map? That's not gonna work.

Do keep in mind the comments you got here may be harsh but in the end we're all working together to make good maps. Nobody is insulting you when they say the map isn't good

 

[Wilson]

The amount i play tf2 in a day sometimes is scary, yet i have only one map that anyone can consider good on some level.

Saying playing TF2 a lot makes you good at making TF2 maps is like saying watching a lot of tv shows makes you good TV writer.

 

[xzzy]

Some of the feedback given on this site may come off as caustic but it's not intended that way. It's just that some of these guys have been answering the exact same design questions for several years now, and it gets a tiring after a while. No one wants to be a skipping record.

Sometimes you just have to roll with a thicker skin and/or get a feel for the community you're interfacing with before reading anything into what they say.

 

[NovaCor]

I can't even be bothered to continue reading this thread after this guy said he understands TF2 balance and design and thinks a map proven to work in Far Cry 2 will do fine in TF2 as a result.

OK. Alright. Great.

1. It is said adjustments will be made in the original post. Had you read that, you would know that I fully understand a map cannot be copied exactly from one game to another. Please refer back to the original post.

The amount i play tf2 in a day sometimes is scary, yet i have only one map that anyone can consider good on some level.

Saying playing TF2 a lot makes you good at making TF2 maps is like saying watching a lot of tv shows makes you good TV writer.

I never said it made me a good mapper, I said it gives me a complete understanding of each class's role, and it does. Sure, Ill agree that time played doesnt always = understanding, but in some cases it does. In this case, it does. I play every class and know what they are capable of. While Im not the bestest TF2 player evar, I usually top the scoreboard AND have been accomplishing the goal while doing it, not just farming points.

Well, make it to a1 and we can test if the map works.
The worst that could happen is you learn it doesn't so you can adjust it appropriately, and we'll see if the sightlines are fine and how much TF2 differs from most other FPS nowadays

That's a different game. So instead of designing a map for TF2, you're making a remake of a "popular" Far Cry 2 map? That's not gonna work.

Do keep in mind the comments you got here may be harsh but in the end we're all working together to make good maps. Nobody is insulting you when they say the map isn't good

This I can agree with, which is why in the original post I stated clearly that I would be making changes to the layout to make it TF2 appropriate. No one seems to have read that at all. I even changed some of the sightlines and layout already, which is shown below.

If anything is clear from your screenshots, it's that pretty much everyone here knows more about tf2 level design than you do. Shut up and listen and maybe you'll give yourself a chance to learn something.

This is the sort of childishness I am talking about. You cant look at the very beginnings of a map and make statements like that without purely trying to be insulting.

Now on to business. The screenshots below illustrate just how much of the assumptions about dimensions and scaling are wrong...which is 99% of it. Especially this one:

Hold your horses there fella. No need to jump on the defencive. You wont learn anything if is all you do is disagree, reject and ignore any advice you don't like.


I can see by your screenshots some of those distances are clearly over 2048 units in length (thanks to the spawn point reference and texture scaling/tiling). Standard "lengthy" sightlines appear anywhere between 1,800 and 2,600-2,800 units, if you exceed these then we are giving a pre-emptive warning to avoid it if you can because generally they are really really bad.


D) Far Cry 2 isn't TF2; and this is kind of my point when i say there's no applicable layout design. The map doesn't appear to have been designed for TF2, now you admit you've been testing it in a completely different game with different gameplay mechanics. This proves my point. Just because the map works in 1 game does not give it a seal of approval for every other game in existance. Your failure to notice that was my primary point of concern, in order to learn the nuances of TF2 mechanics you need to study TF2, not Far Cry 2. One of the things that makes TF2 so unique is it's class based gameplay along with its strange movement perks such as knock-back and explosive propulsion.

Which I also once again refer Grazr back the the original post that clearly states Ill be making adjustments for TF2.

This screen shows below that the largest area is by far smaller than 2048 as you said you could clearly see. Now, you can clearly see it is much smaller than that. This is the problem I had with your post, which kicked off the entire 'ego' thing...you didnt read my original post, and made assumptions as to sizing right off the get go instead of asking.

The next screen shows the longest sightline in the map, leaving out the area at the bottom where no players will need to pass through or even be in unless they are counter sniping. Its 1852 units from the very back corner, and offers a small cone of view when standing back there. If the sniper were to stand at the front of the shipping crate, it makes the view roughly 100 feet long, and telephone poles as well as other detail to be added later will break up the view and provide cover for Hoovies...who shouldnt even be taking that route but surely will at some point in the match.

* I also must point out I hit 0 instead of 1 on the numpad in the screenshot

Also, there are two routes that completely bypass this alley...and its location makes it the out-of-the way route to take anyway. It will be the least trafficked route, which you can see in the screen below it.

As you can see, the longest sightline is in the longest route, and will be the least used. Also, all paths lead to the same choke point, funneling players to the battle.

Lastly, we have the largest open area on ground level, which would be much more of a concern than a rooftop's exposure. 740x864 is less than half the 2048that was apparently 'clearly visible from texture scaling and spawn points'

Now what I can easily do it remove the rooftop access to the smaller building towards the top of the map. That would further limit Sollys and Demos from flying about the map at will. Or I could simply allow them access on the lower roof level and extend the upper level our of reach and/or block it with player clips. That would also allow a limites vantage point on the battle area below.


My biggest problem with Grazr's post was that he was completely uninformed about the subject and jumped to conclusions not only about my credibility but down to scaling of the map. You must do your research as he himself stated before jumping into anything, and that includes forum posts. The information about how I would alter the layout to fit TF2 was there in the original post, and asking about dimensions would have been far better than assuming that you can eyeball hammer units like that.

Im going to defend myself and my work when I know I am right and people have made wide assumptions and are completely incorrect. His is also the ONLY post that was reacted to in that way, and if you all take the time to review the entire thread you would see that. I took Grazr's post as purely insulting because of that. Not only did I create 100s of maps for FC2, but I have mapped for games dating all the way back to Timeplitters. I am slo building a total conversion Source Mod. Does that make me automatically qualified to pump out TF2 maps? Of course not. Having used Hammer for 3 years and playing Tf2 for 4 years certainly helps though, which is why I want to try an Urban map instead of the typical industrial/farm TF2 settings. Its more of a challenge and I appreciate help. I just ask that people be better informed and take the time read the entire post before making assumptions.

 

[Sel]

Ok go on a crusade about how great your work actually is then and continue to make garbage content out of everything you touch, while ignoring any suggestions/criticism. It's up to you whether you want to improve or keep writing giant essays on why your work is the best thing ever.

 

[Wilson]

Sure, maybe Grarz was wrong on scale.
Your map is still series of open flat streets and that is going to be incredibly boring to play on.

 

[NovaCor]

Ok go on a crusade about how great your work actually is then and continue to make garbage content out of everything you touch, while ignoring any suggestions/criticism. It's up to you whether you want to improve or keep writing giant essays on why your work is the best thing ever.

You have no credibility with me. You never even offered advice, just jumped on the bandwagon and started throwing insults out like candy at a parade.

Again, a prime example of the childishness.

I am merely showing the actual dimensions to facilitate better advice...Now Im 'on a crusade' because I am proving scaling assumptions wrong, which is why I disagreed with the original advice. So if someone here assumes something and is wrong, then proven to be wrong, Im still the bad guy?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

I dont even know where you came up with 'keep writing giant essays on why your work is the best thing ever' Like I said, I am simply providing all the information so people can offer more accurate advice. No other piece of advice was responded to like that, because they were genaral replies and didnt make assumptions as to size and dimensions. Nor did they tell me I knew nothing about TF2 mechanics or say my maps were garbage (though they have just begun). I dont think this map is great by any means. it may end up being a decent map, it may not. I wont get the help Im asking for by taking advice based on false assumptions though. So Im going to show more of whats going on scaling wise to get the proper, accurate advice. If thats being on a crusade or somehow alluding to the fact that the map is already the greatest thing evar to you, then feel free to stay out of the thread. I wont cry either way.

 

[grazr]

This screen shows below that the largest area is by far smaller than 2048 as you said you could clearly see. Now, you can clearly see it is much smaller than that. This is the problem I had with your post, which kicked off the entire 'ego' thing...you didnt read my original post, and made assumptions as to sizing right off the get go instead of asking.

...

My biggest problem with Grazr's post was that he was completely uninformed about the subject and jumped to conclusions not only about my credibility but down to scaling of the map...

While that's all well and good, those screenshots are not the screenshots shown in either your OP or your second post.

Whilst you might hold me accountable for making assumptions based on the limited data you provided, i fail to see your grievance with this obvious "port of call" on mine or any one elses part. Of course i will feedback what is shown, whether it's incomplete or not, that is what you requested. As far as anyone is concerned this is playable space as this is not explained on your part:

I can only feedback on the information you provide. If you provide incomplete data, of course there will be holes in my criticism.

My last piece of advice would be to plan your layout on paper first. If you plan it on paper you can have a complete design theorised in an hour or so and you wont have to spend hours modifying and rectifying redundant geometry in Hammer.

 

[A Boojum Snark]

To be fair, I don't believe you ever said where spawns/objectives/routes are. The red lines in your screenshot labeling spawns and routes are the most obvious long distances, but knowing the flow now makes it apparent that it is a less relevant issue.

I also feel like you might be taking the feedback here as directly focused on your map, but a bunch (at least mine anyway) is general theory stuff for discussion, not criticism that needs to be "defended".

 

[Sel]

There's no point even trying with you. You're too busy going on a crusade to defend your map to ever even consider it could use improvement.

 

[NovaCor]

While that's all well and good, those screenshots are not the screenshots shown in either your OP or your second post. Whilst you might hold me accountable for making assumptions based on the limited data you provided, i fail to see your grievance with this obvious "port of call" on my part. Of course i will feedback what is shown, whether it's incomplete or not, that is what you requested. I can only feedback on the information you provide. If you provide incomplete data, of course there will be holes in my criticism.

My last piece of advice would be to plan your layout on paper first. If you plan it on paper you can have a complete design theorised in an hour or so and you wont have to spend hours modifying and rectifying redundant geometry in Hammer.

In all fairness, in my profession, which is construction inspections, I ask for information I dont have before making assumptions like that. Same goes for advice I give other Source Modders on Moddb, and anything from gaming to auto repair to preofessional recommedations, really. I never just fill in the blanks myself; and this is a clear example of why.

Had you given the same advice with correct information and left out the 'learn TF2 mechanics' part, this thread would have gone totally differently. Plus theres the part where the original post clearly stated Id change the layout for Tf2 - but most seemed to skip past that part and assume i was directly porting the map.

Also, I certainly could have responded better. Instead of having two pages of 'kiddie time', I should have immediately just posted the hammer screens showing the actual sizes and some in game shots as well. Instead, i got cranky, and I shouldnt have. It would have been much better to just provide more info to get accurate advice.

I already plan layouts on graph paper; though I still end up changing things once I get the basics laid out in Hammer I would like to ask what you feel about the actual dimensions as shown though. Ive ran around in it as several classes and it seems to be pretty fair for all...not too long or wide but not all clausterphobic and confined. Have any thoughts on the basic numbers as shown?

 

[NovaCor]

To be fair, I don't believe you ever said where spawns/objectives/routes are. The red lines in your screenshot labeling spawns and routes are the most obvious long distances, but knowing the flow now makes it apparent that it is a less relevant issue.

I also feel like you might be taking the feedback here as directly focused on your map, but a bunch (at least mine anyway) is general theory stuff for discussion, not criticism that needs to be "defended".

Exactly. I didnt provide all of the neccesary info.

Both parties are wrong here: I could have easily uploaded more detailed screens, and the critics could have easily asked for more details as opposed to just filling in the blanks themselves. As flow is so important, it would have been prudent to ask where spawns were...and prudent for me to actually include them for feedback fron the start.

I took your advice well, because like you said it was general advice and i didnt feel the need to go on the defensive about it. And it was great advice. Part of it I was aware of already, but I didnt consider the FOV much when banging out the basic dimensions. I was conscious of it, but didnt place as much importance on it as you suggested I do, which was also great advice. Posts like yours were what I was looking for...pointing out things I partially overlooked from an outside perspecive.

Also, thanks for the Prop Libraries. They are much easier and efficient to use than the browser.

 

[Wilson]

In all fairness, in my profession, which is construction inspections, I ask for information I dont have before making assumptions like that. Same goes for advice I give other Source Modders on Moddb, and anything from gaming to auto repair to preofessional recommedations, really. I never just fill in the blanks myself; and this is a clear example of why.

If you really are construction inspector, you probably also know you should give all information possible to people in need of this said information. In this case, us.
You want us to give feedback that is accurate, give us images that are up to date and contain better information right away.

 

[fubarFX]

In all fairness, in my profession, which is construction inspections, I ask for information I dont have before making assumptions like that. Same goes for advice I give other Source Modders on Moddb, and anything from gaming to auto repair to preofessional recommedations, really. I never just fill in the blanks myself; and this is a clear example of why.

but you asked this community to comment on incomplete information. how can you expect correct feedback. you're just not making sense, this is a completely different situation. No one here is going to make sure we are getting all the information. we just don't care nearly enough.

 

[ForbiddenDonut]

I know a number of people have already emphasized the Far Cry 2 =/= TF2 argument, but I want to sort of explain why designs from more "realistic" shooters is not compatible with the design of TF2.



Here, I've taken your last screenshot and added in a possible Sniper and Sentry location. For some odd reason, you wrote "no reason to be here." First of all, you have absolutely no way to know that. The way a map plays out in your head or on paper will always be different in cases from the actual game. Players are creative and they want to find the routes or methods that other players (and even the mapper) haven't thought of. That's why maps, even official ones, are updated.

I say this because look at how incredibly powerful a Sniper sitting in this circle would be. He has a 1000+ sightline that rotates more than 90 degrees! He can shoot down both streets and anyone coming out of the middle building or is on its roof. We've established that distance is not the sole factor in making Snipers powerful: it's also the FoV. They don't share a linear proportion - the FoV exponentially explodes distance, so giving a Sniper this kind of position is crazy.

In fact, not only does he have this crazy large FoV that spans from the perpendicular streets on either side, but he has a good view of every single route the enemy may take. Short of a cloaked Spy (which, as someone who mains Spy, would have a horrible time on this map due to a complete lack of safe decloak spots), there is nothing that can get by without the Sniper having a clear shot at.

The second thing I added is a possible Sentry spot. If I built a Sentry here, I could cover, once again, all three routes to my base. The Level 3 Sentry would tear anyone that came by both streets, anyone that went through the building, anyone that jumped onto the roof (that is, if he hasn't been sniped by that time). You'd need a Uber'd Demoman to deal with it, because not even the Spy has a side-route into that area. Spy checking that spot would be hilariously easy - the Engineer or guard Pyro only has to look one-direction!

Don't push off grazr's advice so quickly. He has labored for hours on studying the design theory of TF2. The man has enough design articles under his belt to open a shop. He gains nothing from insulting you - he only wants to help point out the flaws. And there are flaws, but we're trying to help.

Great maps have varying side-routes, where one player cannot guard all 2 1/2 to 3 sides. Great maps have height variation - at this point in time, only demomen and soldiers get to utilize more than the standard height in your map (word of advice - put some cover on the roof and have a staircase inside the building so other players can use it. Giving demomen/soldiers an advantage is fine. Giving them only the height advantage is bad.

Lastly, breathe more life into your map. I live in New York City. I see the same city blocks every day of my life. Do I want to really play a TF2 map on one of the less interesting ones? No. Give it something special. Why are BLU and RED fighting over this particular area of the city? What do they benefit from controlling it?

I hope this helps. Good luck.

 

[grazr]

In all fairness, in my profession, which is construction inspections, I ask for information I dont have before making assumptions like that.

In all fairness, in my profession, which is the design industry, you give feedback on what you see as what you see is always the latest iteration of any given product. No junior designer (game design or otherwise) who takes himself seriously will withold information for ego-related reasons so this is not an uncommon or unreasonable assumption.

I have 7 years experience as an ammatuer level designer for Source as a result of my hobby and several months experience experimenting in other game engines. I studied game design for my dissertation and got a 69 (sexual innuendo's aside, it was frustratingly 1 mark short of a 1st class mark), graduated in graphic design and am now working in the entertainment industry doing promotional work for local theatre venues, Channel 4 and the BBC.

I'm not trying to wave my dick around, but that seems to be where you place value. I work in the creative industry. "looks good" is as useless feedback as "looks shit", you are getting a lot of specific, valueble feedback but you refuse to acknowledge any of it because you're offended that you're not being idolised and/or frustrated that it's irrelevant or redundant because the criticism was made from incomplete data (which is not the critics fault). Some of the guys here have worked with Valve and had their content, be it textures/models/maps, purchased and intergrated into the game. Just Sayin'... you might wanna take on board what these people have to say. If not, it's your loss. I just think the collective experience by the guys here is more relavent than your "constuction inspector" job.

 

[NovaCor]

If you really are construction inspector, you probably also know you should give all information possible to people in need of this said information. In this case, us.
You want us to give feedback that is accurate, give us images that are up to date and contain better information right away.

No, I am the one who needs the information. I am never the provider, because in the end I make the call and give the recommendation based on the information given to ME. Then I provide the information given to me to my own superiors for the final call. If I was the contractor, I would have to provide the info...which in this case that would be a great analogy. Unfortunately, I am not usually the guy who needs to provide the info, so its not natural to me.

Still, if you dont know, ask. Filling in the blanks is never good. Its funny how when I offer people mapping advice on moddb my first question is 'where do you start' but when Im on the other side, I dont automatically provide it. Also funny is that I used to provide all of the info, of you view the OP and link...its been a while since I made MP maps so I must be out of touch.

I admitted wrong there, but I fail to see how assuming what you dont know is a viable alternative to asking.

In the future, Ill provide more info if I see something thats not accurate advice as opposed to reacting defensively. Most of us have the same goal; to see good, new TF2 maps to play. There was no need for me to react as I did.

We are waaaay off topic now anyway...Id like some advice on the current dimensions and layout. I was considering shrinking the parking lot behind the large central building because engineers cannot cover the whole thing with a SG. Since the parking lots were supposed to be important areas to control for overall control of the map, I was thinking I should do so. or at very least add some detail to take up space...detail will be added anyway, but functional detail is always better than purely aesthetic detail

Also, the rooftop access...the smaller building near the top. I was thinking of moving the high part to the opposte side and making it inaccessible to limit Soldier/Demo mobility. That would offer a small view of the parking area behind it, which is another choke point. Any view over it might make it too easy to push through an Engie nest though, so raising the entire thing and making it inaccessible is also an option.