- Thread starter MangyCarface
- Start date
- Feb 26, 2008
- 1,626
- 1,325
Do they have to be captured in succession?
Since people read left to right it would seem to me to be more legible as abcd-abcd rather than dcba-abcd. The 2 points in the middle (both the A's), i have to look at the hud really carefully to distinguish who's captured what A.
That or maybe it's the red crosses on the red background. Maybe if you did green ticks rather than crosses for contrast? Or utilise the white/grey "locked" symbol already available in the HUD system.
If you don't cap them in succession the dcba-abcd arrangement probably isn't as important. But you should defintely do something about the red crosses on the red brief cases.
Since people read left to right it would seem to me to be more legible as abcd-abcd rather than dcba-abcd. The 2 points in the middle (both the A's), i have to look at the hud really carefully to distinguish who's captured what A.
That or maybe it's the red crosses on the red background. Maybe if you did green ticks rather than crosses for contrast? Or utilise the white/grey "locked" symbol already available in the HUD system.
If you don't cap them in succession the dcba-abcd arrangement probably isn't as important. But you should defintely do something about the red crosses on the red brief cases.
Mariner
L2: Junior Member
- Jan 16, 2011
- 59
- 20
Yea, the white spawn tiles really contrast against the medi-evil-ish stone/concrete + wood walls. For the sake of definition you should keep either strictly to the typical wash-room theme spawn room (most CTF) or not at all (arena maps/some AD).
http://forums.tf2maps.net/geek/gars/images/6/8/4/ctf_estate_b10000.jpg
http://forums.tf2maps.net/geek/gars/images/6/8/4/ctf_estate_b10002.jpg
These also kinda bother me. The roof over the entrances, this isn't how load bearing supports work. The weight of the building is being applied to the side, when it should be forced down. Wood is light and absorbs sheering forces a lot better, metal structures are similar, but brick and stone buildings don't handle their own weight very well.
You could use the left example for BLU and right for RED to abide by the roof style concepts between the two teams. Or just one of the options for both, or utilise another material that is lighter and handles sheering forces better that would be less jarring to players. Or rework that structure so it's simpler in design, which may make it easier to apply models and decals to break monotony on the wall.
As an idea to complement grazr's suggestion, I was at the Heniz History Center last month, and it's ceiling is a fascinating example and study of how bricks are used in architecture.
The building itself used to be an icehouse, and that ceiling is actually made up of tiny, shallow brick arches sandwiched between the exposed steel beams. It's beautiful, and something I think would be at home in your map.
Mariner
L2: Junior Member
- Jan 16, 2011
- 59
- 20
and the delicious result. ty icky
To fix the red cross problem, why not use yellow crosses, or even green ones? Those colors wouldn't conflict with either team.
EDIT: Grazr suggested the same thing. DERPHERPDERPDERP
Last edited:
It'd be easier if you could have the one you need to go to large than the rest, that way you can just glance and tell by its place in the lineup.
PMAvers
L6: Sharp Member
- Jan 29, 2008
- 389
- 142
Weird issue in the fountain.
It's definitely a interesting idea for a map, at least. Definitely would love to see it played with some people who are willing to give it a shot, and not the usual pugger "omg too much thought required I'm just going to complain instead."
It's definitely a interesting idea for a map, at least. Definitely would love to see it played with some people who are willing to give it a shot, and not the usual pugger "omg too much thought required I'm just going to complain instead."
- Feb 26, 2008
- 1,626
- 1,325
Still can't figure out how to fix the black walls nor the missing faces in the fountain.
On the bright side, some detective work has fixed the crippling bug that has prevented us playing more than 1 round on the map! Turns out teleported entities aren't reset, and that was throwing the parenting of the intels to my info_targets off. A manual reset fixed it.
B5 should be up momentarily, check the DL link.
On the bright side, some detective work has fixed the crippling bug that has prevented us playing more than 1 round on the map! Turns out teleported entities aren't reset, and that was throwing the parenting of the intels to my info_targets off. A manual reset fixed it.
B5 should be up momentarily, check the DL link.
- Feb 26, 2008
- 1,626
- 1,325
Still can't figure out how to fix the black walls nor the missing faces in the fountain.
On the bright side, some detective work has fixed the crippling bug that has prevented us playing more than 1 round on the map! Turns out teleported entities aren't reset, and that was throwing the parenting of the intels to my info_targets off. A manual reset fixed it.
B5 should be up momentarily, check the DL link.
On the bright side, some detective work has fixed the crippling bug that has prevented us playing more than 1 round on the map! Turns out teleported entities aren't reset, and that was throwing the parenting of the intels to my info_targets off. A manual reset fixed it.
B5 should be up momentarily, check the DL link.
Ezekel
L11: Posh Member
- Dec 16, 2008
- 818
- 245
a couple of thoughts:
i know you've already done quite a bit of detailing and don't really want to tell you to scrap that, however, it may be better to cut out the last caps, as CTFs are typically 3-captures long (i know this isn't exactly a typical CTF but still, that last cap is quite a bit of a marathon)
when i was working on something similar to this (ctf_morphology) i approached the changing in cap/intel position as being vertically (specifically a moving elevator in an elevator shaft, the intel appears to move because the new intel entity starts off parented to the elevator, it doesn't matter if that parenting is broken before the elevator finishes moving because return time is greatly larger than the movement time). so when the other team capped, your intel would be deeper/lower into your base, making it more defensible and opening up more attack routes (the original cap area becomes a drop down attack route). - this countered the marathon like distances late intel cappoints can turn such a map into.
the other thing is also: the intel location doesn't have to become progessively more difficult to attack, the game can be just as interesting if each location is diverse and unique, but with the same overall difficulty.
on morphology however, capping the intel would also open-up/unlock an entire level of the map that was previously not available. - this obviously had problems as it meant that players would mostly focus on only 1 level of play. i think that that was due to bad connectivity at the map's middle, rather than a flaw in the idea itself.
you're perhaps too far into development with estate for such a radical shift in layout, but if you ever try it again on another map you might want to consider working on the vertical more than the horizontal.
edit:
also your HUD, I feel it's giving a little bit too much info in it's current incarnation. a player doesn't really need to know about the "dead" cap points that have already been capped/locked-out by intel caps.
I'm not sure anything can be done about it due to limitations with the HUD, but if possible, trim away the locked out caps that have already been capped.
Ideally, just having only 2 caps in the HUD would be the best, with each displaying both the letter for the cappoint and the status of it. - it'd greatly simplify the hud, and make it much clearer what's going on to a new player to the map (i.e. it lets them focus on the current objective without worrying about the next or previous objectives).
failing that though, maybe just rearranging them so it's on 2 rows, as such:
A B C D
A B C D
i know you've already done quite a bit of detailing and don't really want to tell you to scrap that, however, it may be better to cut out the last caps, as CTFs are typically 3-captures long (i know this isn't exactly a typical CTF but still, that last cap is quite a bit of a marathon)
when i was working on something similar to this (ctf_morphology) i approached the changing in cap/intel position as being vertically (specifically a moving elevator in an elevator shaft, the intel appears to move because the new intel entity starts off parented to the elevator, it doesn't matter if that parenting is broken before the elevator finishes moving because return time is greatly larger than the movement time). so when the other team capped, your intel would be deeper/lower into your base, making it more defensible and opening up more attack routes (the original cap area becomes a drop down attack route). - this countered the marathon like distances late intel cappoints can turn such a map into.
the other thing is also: the intel location doesn't have to become progessively more difficult to attack, the game can be just as interesting if each location is diverse and unique, but with the same overall difficulty.
on morphology however, capping the intel would also open-up/unlock an entire level of the map that was previously not available. - this obviously had problems as it meant that players would mostly focus on only 1 level of play. i think that that was due to bad connectivity at the map's middle, rather than a flaw in the idea itself.
you're perhaps too far into development with estate for such a radical shift in layout, but if you ever try it again on another map you might want to consider working on the vertical more than the horizontal.
edit:
also your HUD, I feel it's giving a little bit too much info in it's current incarnation. a player doesn't really need to know about the "dead" cap points that have already been capped/locked-out by intel caps.
I'm not sure anything can be done about it due to limitations with the HUD, but if possible, trim away the locked out caps that have already been capped.
Ideally, just having only 2 caps in the HUD would be the best, with each displaying both the letter for the cappoint and the status of it. - it'd greatly simplify the hud, and make it much clearer what's going on to a new player to the map (i.e. it lets them focus on the current objective without worrying about the next or previous objectives).
failing that though, maybe just rearranging them so it's on 2 rows, as such:
A B C D
A B C D
Last edited:
honeymustard
L9: Fashionable Member
- Oct 26, 2009
- 698
- 574
I had the same problem as you with the fountain in one of my maps - if I recall you have to either cut the water up some or not have the entire border one func_detail (or try func_brush or func_lod).
Randdalf
aa
- Feb 14, 2008
- 1,051
- 931
So I played some last night and it actually looked much better than in the screenshots in my opinion, there's a lot of visual jewels hidden away. However I did get that Steel-feel (that steeling) from it, where the map seems very complex, and like Steel you'd eventually learn the layout over time - I very definitely didn't have any clue where I was going during most of the time I was playing. There are two things I think need changing: the skybox/skybox lighting make the entire thing look completely drab and lifeless in certain areas, it really doesn't do it any favours visually; and I feel like there's too much brick, which quite a few people said when I played.
- Apr 9, 2008
- 1,706
- 1,491
After playing this map I've found it difficult to quantify a single things wrong with it. Not because it's perfect but because it seems everything is...bad.
For a start, I strongly believe that the lighting in this map is very counter-intuitive. When I'm running around this map my eyes are lead in every direction and never towards exits/entrances, ie, the most important things any player should be keeping track off. Here are some examples...
In this image, my eyes are being drawn by 3 lamps, a spotlight on the right and a lantern under the stairs. Why? Shouldn't my attention be drawn to the most important part which is the doorways at the back?
If you were to mute/remove these silly lanterns and have a strong light striking the back wall those entrances will become immediately apparent and player's will know where they should go and where enemies will potentially come from.
Wouldn't it better if these spotlights were maybe moved to the doorway at the top of the hill? Either way, the doorway should be the primary focus.
Actually, I'd say all this lamps are driving me crazy. They are literally everywhere and pulling my focus all over the place whilst providing no purpose in terms of illuminating the map!
WHY IS THIS HERE?!?!! It's annoying as hell. My movement shouldn't be affect by dumb prop placement.
These spaces are way too tight.
What is the purpose of this room? It seems very counter-intuitive. If I'm going down the tunnel I expect it to lead somewhere, not so that it makes me turn back on myself. I can understand that you want player's to be able to backtrack if they use the drop-down but that's the risk they take. You use the drop-down to gain a sneaky advantange and if you're spotted, sucks to be you.
This area annoys me for some reason, probably because it has a room which I believe is unneccessary. I think it would be better if you removed the door at the back and move the entrance to upper mid into the left path. Also, try and visually open that area up so I can get a better of view of where I'm going. There is nothing more annoying then tight, blind turns.
Also, there is very little distinction between RED and BLU's side without having to actually look for signs and the odd wall texture. The difference should be immediately apparent at a sub-concious level. I shouldn't have to think where I am. I should just *know*.
In the end, I can honestly say that this map is messy in every sense. The layout is strange, not because of the game mode, but because of the amount of entrances/exits, 45 degree turns, multiple tunnels, crazy amounts of interconnects and tight spaces, not helped by poopy lighting.
For a start, I strongly believe that the lighting in this map is very counter-intuitive. When I'm running around this map my eyes are lead in every direction and never towards exits/entrances, ie, the most important things any player should be keeping track off. Here are some examples...
In this image, my eyes are being drawn by 3 lamps, a spotlight on the right and a lantern under the stairs. Why? Shouldn't my attention be drawn to the most important part which is the doorways at the back?
If you were to mute/remove these silly lanterns and have a strong light striking the back wall those entrances will become immediately apparent and player's will know where they should go and where enemies will potentially come from.
Wouldn't it better if these spotlights were maybe moved to the doorway at the top of the hill? Either way, the doorway should be the primary focus.
Actually, I'd say all this lamps are driving me crazy. They are literally everywhere and pulling my focus all over the place whilst providing no purpose in terms of illuminating the map!
WHY IS THIS HERE?!?!! It's annoying as hell. My movement shouldn't be affect by dumb prop placement.
These spaces are way too tight.
What is the purpose of this room? It seems very counter-intuitive. If I'm going down the tunnel I expect it to lead somewhere, not so that it makes me turn back on myself. I can understand that you want player's to be able to backtrack if they use the drop-down but that's the risk they take. You use the drop-down to gain a sneaky advantange and if you're spotted, sucks to be you.
This area annoys me for some reason, probably because it has a room which I believe is unneccessary. I think it would be better if you removed the door at the back and move the entrance to upper mid into the left path. Also, try and visually open that area up so I can get a better of view of where I'm going. There is nothing more annoying then tight, blind turns.
Also, there is very little distinction between RED and BLU's side without having to actually look for signs and the odd wall texture. The difference should be immediately apparent at a sub-concious level. I shouldn't have to think where I am. I should just *know*.
In the end, I can honestly say that this map is messy in every sense. The layout is strange, not because of the game mode, but because of the amount of entrances/exits, 45 degree turns, multiple tunnels, crazy amounts of interconnects and tight spaces, not helped by poopy lighting.
To tack onto the mazelike thing, I want to say I was never lost on Steel, even the first time I played it. I understood the layout immediately and intuitively. Estate took me about 90 minutes of playtime to grasp. Getting rid of unnecessary places like Psy pointed out would go a long way to both opening up narrow, hard to move in areas, while also unifying smaller areas into larger, manageable chunks.
This isn't a question of making players think and shunning pub players who are idiots. This isn't a question of taking time to learn the map. This is multiple smart people telling you your map is too complex and confusing even after they understand it, Mangy, and I think you should step back and think about it more seriously because it seems like in tests you could frankly give a fuck what half of us think.
This isn't a question of making players think and shunning pub players who are idiots. This isn't a question of taking time to learn the map. This is multiple smart people telling you your map is too complex and confusing even after they understand it, Mangy, and I think you should step back and think about it more seriously because it seems like in tests you could frankly give a fuck what half of us think.
- Feb 26, 2008
- 1,626
- 1,325
@ezekel Those are definitely interesting ideas- One thing I don't think I've mentioned is that originally this was just going to be a variant of the atrophy/backpier formula but in reverse, where the intels were on carts that had tracks going through the map, moving back on capture to set points. In fact, that still hasn't been ruled out; I simply wanted to test faster by just simplifying it down to discrete rather than continuous movement. As for the HUD, I worry that having a nonsymmetric layout (i.e. abcd abcd) would make things seem linear in an 8 flag fashion rather than 4, and going vertical (abcd over abcd) would interfere with the intel HUD as well as not sticking to a BLU/RED split the precedent of which was set by said intel HUD.
Great point. On it
I'll address this further down-
Great point. On it
Revising most of the lighting including environmental re: your earlier comments. This'll probably be addressed as a result
Absolutely disagree. Lamposts are placed in the middle of spaces, realistically. This prop was put here not only to light the area but also to allow scouts to boost over the wall into the next courtyard, which I personally use often.
It's counter-intuitive because you're thinking of it backwards. These are not entrances into the tunnels, they're opportunities for attackers to destroy sentry nests. Ones I've seen players use effectively. Remove them and the last point really WILL be impossible to capture.
A very interesting suggestion. I will try to relook at that area in general and see if some consolidation can't be done. However, in general I tend towards complexity over simplicity for the sake of giving players more options (the reason I love upwards and hate badwater) Great feedback either way
While I had intended to address this at some point, this is a very good summary of the issue. I myself still find myself looking for clues as to which side I'm on again. Now that all the bugs have been ironed out, I will be taking a good deal of time out to rehaul BLU into its own theme.
Again, I prefer this to the straightforwardness of yukon; you unfortunately up the entrance reqs to learning the map, sacrificing that to add player options and increase ingame creativity. I've already seen very clever things done. The rest of the complexity is for optimization's sake.
Pub players aren't idiots, and I think it's one of the flaws of this forum to confuse their ignorance with stupidity. That's beside the point though, I value tf2m feedback greatly and love most of the people here, and while I've been powering through bugfixes it may seem like I've steamrolled over some other feedback, I'll be addressing what I can. Even saying that though, tf2m is not my only source of feedback, and when tests in full 32p settings have gone so much more smoothly and feedback been very positive I try to weigh all input evenly while iterating. It's even more frustrating to hear everyone ooh and awe at the visuals when all I hear from tf2m is that it's drab and ugly. But I'm sure we all know the feeling of having differing feedback to reconcile.
I put that down to the people here being more methodical regarding aesthetics. It frustrates me when a lot of people think that throwing hundreds of props at a map makes it pretty, there were plenty of cases of this in the artpass contest; but there needs to be method to the madness, to make things more coherent. I'm not trying to imply you've done the same here, but you definately want to consolidate your details. It's like you had a lot of interesting ideas, but too many to execute in a single map.
Your map is nice looking, but it could be amazing with refinement; a lot of other communities are often too polite to say when something nice looking could be improved because they don't want to insult you and still like what you've produced.
Last edited:
- Feb 26, 2008
- 1,626
- 1,325
Style-preview post:
I've made:
2x red(der) cobblestones
1x red version of stonetrim001a
1x greyer version of stonewall001
I've made:
2x red(der) cobblestones
1x red version of stonetrim001a
1x greyer version of stonewall001