- Thread starter JeanPaul
- Start date
it's generally risky to do that, because sometimes it screws up the other custom assets and other things someone once told me about
I was under the impression that that would fuck over cubemaps and whatnot. Though i guess if you're fiddling with a file they're already pakked into...
Sel
Banned
- Feb 18, 2009
- 1,239
- 2,570
First off, your control points themselves are pretty interesting looking, and look like they could play decent if the rest of the map was good, but it's not. Every area of the map is excessively complex, with major height differences, and paths nearly everywhere you look.
Starting with your path between A and B.
These pictures really highlights the major problem with the map's transitions between points, it's not that it's over scaled, when we all said too big that's not what we meant, we meant that every area, including ones like these which should just be simple paths going somewhere, are needlessly complex monstrosities that themselves could fit a 12v12 tf2 match and still have room to spare.
Again, paths and height variations everywhere, and no way to know what is going on because it is mentally impossible for anyone other than a savant playing with 180 fov to process what is going on here.
Also at A and C the defenders can easily get unobstructed view of EVERYTHING that is headed their way, while standing in pretty much invulnerable areas.
Like there's not much else to really say about it, these are your problems, and short of totally rebuilding 95% of the map you're not going to get this to work very well. Stop and study stock maps and look at how simple most of the areas are, and try to emulate that at first, and then when you've got a handle on how to make something that works, see how you can push things to make them more interesting without totally breaking the game.
Starting with your path between A and B.
These pictures really highlights the major problem with the map's transitions between points, it's not that it's over scaled, when we all said too big that's not what we meant, we meant that every area, including ones like these which should just be simple paths going somewhere, are needlessly complex monstrosities that themselves could fit a 12v12 tf2 match and still have room to spare.
Again, paths and height variations everywhere, and no way to know what is going on because it is mentally impossible for anyone other than a savant playing with 180 fov to process what is going on here.
Also at A and C the defenders can easily get unobstructed view of EVERYTHING that is headed their way, while standing in pretty much invulnerable areas.
Like there's not much else to really say about it, these are your problems, and short of totally rebuilding 95% of the map you're not going to get this to work very well. Stop and study stock maps and look at how simple most of the areas are, and try to emulate that at first, and then when you've got a handle on how to make something that works, see how you can push things to make them more interesting without totally breaking the game.
On the last picture,I would lower route 3 to the level of route 5, lower route 4 to the level of route 5, connect route 3 to route 5 with a bridge, and get route 7 to the level of route 6.
Last edited:
Sel
Banned
- Feb 18, 2009
- 1,239
- 2,570
Uh wow, thanks a lot for this! You made me laugh when you said id have to rebuild 95% of the map haha. Ill fix all these issues for A2
Also, the point of the map is to have height variation. But I will definitely remove some in areas.
It wasn't meant to be a joke, you will have to rebuild the vast majority of the map in order to make something that will play really well.
Also height variation is great, every map should have that to some degree, but this is just ridiculously excessive.
By comparison here's a shot of Barnblitz, which is easily the Valve map with the most height variation (and as you implied during the Crusoe test, your favorite payload map).
What I noticed is there are 5 distinct levels of play in this area, and this is the only area in the map with more than 2 or 3. Additionally, this building changes from RED to BLU ownership pretty easily because of how simple it is to climb up it. Each of the areas range from about 96-192u (just eyeballing, didn't measure) above the last one, which is a far cry from much of Imbricatus. Beyond that, the height advantage is pretty negligible for either team because of the relative safety of both nearby buildings (CP2's warehouse and CP4's finale room), effectively eliminating any long lines of sight that could otherwise be problematic.
So this is one section of the map that really doesn't provide any noticeably overpowered advantage, though it is necessary for BLU to hold. To contrast, as Sel pointed out, much of your map is 4-7 layers of height or more, and also wide and open, meaning that not only is the height hard to keep track of but it provides a huge advantage over any attackers because few lines of sight are cut in a way that matters. And as if that didn't make it hard enough, the map continually spirals upward, even if just slightly, so defenders always have a slight advantage. (At C, this isn't as bad, as attackers can get up to the upper levels a bit, but it's a bit mazelike at the moment.) Basically, whenever BLU finally does hold an area, they've got another cliff to climb; never can they fire back on RED at equal terms.
Food for thought?
At any rate, this is far better than Proletariat. I look forward to seeing how your TF2 design evolves over time.
What I noticed is there are 5 distinct levels of play in this area, and this is the only area in the map with more than 2 or 3. Additionally, this building changes from RED to BLU ownership pretty easily because of how simple it is to climb up it. Each of the areas range from about 96-192u (just eyeballing, didn't measure) above the last one, which is a far cry from much of Imbricatus. Beyond that, the height advantage is pretty negligible for either team because of the relative safety of both nearby buildings (CP2's warehouse and CP4's finale room), effectively eliminating any long lines of sight that could otherwise be problematic.
So this is one section of the map that really doesn't provide any noticeably overpowered advantage, though it is necessary for BLU to hold. To contrast, as Sel pointed out, much of your map is 4-7 layers of height or more, and also wide and open, meaning that not only is the height hard to keep track of but it provides a huge advantage over any attackers because few lines of sight are cut in a way that matters. And as if that didn't make it hard enough, the map continually spirals upward, even if just slightly, so defenders always have a slight advantage. (At C, this isn't as bad, as attackers can get up to the upper levels a bit, but it's a bit mazelike at the moment.) Basically, whenever BLU finally does hold an area, they've got another cliff to climb; never can they fire back on RED at equal terms.
Food for thought?
At any rate, this is far better than Proletariat. I look forward to seeing how your TF2 design evolves over time.
Trotim
aa
- Jul 14, 2009
- 1,195
- 1,045
For the record that's the one part of Barnblitz I don't like because the height differences are too big. When there's some Soldier or Sniper in a high window you need to look soo high up and it feels awful. Most of the detail buildings' roofs only go as far up as the gameplay area there which is a pretty good sign you're letting players go up too high. Plus the giant steep stairs it causes everywhere I'm not a fan of.
Hell the entire place you labeled as 5 I'd probably just close off because it's so gimmicky and not needed
Hell the entire place you labeled as 5 I'd probably just close off because it's so gimmicky and not needed
Trotim
aa
- Jul 14, 2009
- 1,195
- 1,045
Yes of course it can, look up what the word means
I don't find it fun that's my entire point
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,874
- 1,258
i know the general meaning of the word. its the meaning in context of tf2 maps played on tf2m that disappoints me.
Exploration in multiplayer is "Why am I not killing mens"