My Thoughts on Func_Nobuild:

[Shmitz]

Besides, Aurora was a new game mode setup that employed a number of custom gameplay and objective mechanics; including new entities requested from valve, by mangy, that made it work properly/more efficiently. It was my understanding he ultimately wanted to release the map as an experimental concept, otherwise he would have seriously revised his layout to resolve these issues before finalising the mode+map and moving onto other projects. He did go from Alpha3 to RC.

I fail to see how any of that is relevant to the discussion at hand: namely, proper uses for func_nobuild. Are you suggesting the abuse of nobuild in that map was acceptable to its gameplay?

 

[Randdalf]

This is sort of non-related, but a game without engineers is much more free flowing, quick and enjoyable than one without - at least from my perspective.

 

[Terr]

It's not wrong at all for a mapper to say: "Buildings right here would be too strong. I don't want the map to flow that way".

The #1 issue is managing player expectations through cues and consistency.

Since TF2 didn't really ship with a good one, perhaps that's an idea for TF2maps to take the lead on: A decal texture that clearly communicates: "You can't build here" which people can re-use. A version for wood, dirt, concrete, metal, etc.

In a dirt field you can always use a flat rock prop, or some micro-displacement with clipping box that shows broken ground... but what makes sense in other contexts?

 

[Icarus]

I have to agree with rexy/shmitz here. Nobuild should just be used to cover up potential bugs or exploits (ie, building on an inaccessible cliff, or a staircase, but not actually used to shape or bandage gameplay problems.

In the case of the intel/capture zone, there should not be a need for nobuild whatsoever.
The attackers should not be able to grab the intel and run while it's under watch by sentries (or in some cases, bringing the intel to the capture zone).
Secondly, you shouldn't even be putting the intel on the floor. Put it on a table, or a stand. Some way to elevate it without blocking too much walkable space. It also has the added benefit of being obvious where the intel spawns.

 

[Shmitz]

The #1 issue is managing player expectations through cues and consistency.

I feel like you are missing the points many of us are making. I completely disagree with this viewpoint. The #1 issue is understanding what makes a sentry position strong and how that affects overall gameplay.

You should never, ever, ever, ever say "hmm this place is too powerful for a sentry, how do I dress up a func_nobuild area?". You should instead say, "how to I change my layout so that a sentry here is a less viable defensive position?"

 

[Ida]

This is sort of non-related, but a game without engineers is much more free flowing, quick and enjoyable than one without - at least from my perspective.

But this is Team Fortress 2. There are Engineers in Team Fortress 2. Effectively removing Engineers or cheaply weakening them just because you don't like them is just lazy.

 

[Randdalf]

But this is Team Fortress 2. There are Engineers in Team Fortress 2. Effectively removing Engineers or cheaply weakening them just because you don't like them is just lazy.

I wasn't saying you should remove engineers, I mean that on the rare occasion that I play without engineers in a public game, that game is more fun from my perspective.

 

[Leminnes]

Depends on the type of game you like. The thing I like about engies is that their inclusion gives a bit of variety to tf2. A game without them is usually much faster and less strategic. Games with them are slower, more methodical, and taking them out takes more team strategy. I feel like TF2 would not be TF2 without them. Hell, func_nobuild a whole map and see what happens.

 

[Spammish]

This is sort of non-related, but a game without engineers is much more free flowing, quick and enjoyable than one without - at least from my perspective.

Though I agree with this in some cases (one of my favourite ever games was on 2fort :O and I think was mainly due to the lack of engineers), engineers are a vital class for both attack and defence, a match on Dustbowl without engineers would almost always result in the attacking team winning and that well hidden level 1 sentry can take out multiple people without them noticing. Above it all though, the effectiveness of an engineer depends more on the competence of enemy players and how they work together as a team, one end makes them underpowered, the other overpowered, this is why you rarely see engies in competitive play and often see new players constantly get rolled by a single sentry. Anyway, to the point of nobuild, from a players perspective, it annoys me to be unable to place a sentry where it looks like it can without clear marking and, for the sake of immersion, a valid reason that you can't, as long as it's not a commonly used solution to a common problem. If it is to be used I think it should only be used in pretty much one place.

 

[grazr]

I fail to see how any of that is relevant to the discussion at hand: namely, proper uses for func_nobuild. Are you suggesting the abuse of nobuild in that map was acceptable to its gameplay?

You were the one who braught it up and i was saying that as an example it's not exactly a strong point and case.

You used Aurora as an example of a map by an "experienced mapper" which suffered from excessive use of func_nobuild to resolve gameplay issues; and i was saying it was an experimental game mode that is subject to certain extenuating circumstances given the fact that A) it was an experiment that was never fully finalised and B) had layout issues (it was small) that were never resolved because it was besides the point of its execution.

If someone made this mistake in a tested official gamemode it would be less acceptable than if it was used to balance an experimental one; despite the fact that we deem it unacceptable in either case. Of course we would like to see such issues eventually resolved in experimental maps, but Mangy obviously desired to move onto other projects instead.

Would we have liked to see Aurora without these building limitations? Of course we would. Could Aurora have avoided this issue if the layout was changed? Most probably. Should those changes have been made to accomodate this? If the map was to become more successful, yes, i think so. Was it a requirement of the maps function and what Mangy was ultimately trying to achieve with the map? As far as i am aware, not really. Did Mangy learn what he wanted to from building this map? I imagine he did, and that he would be able to improve on this concept were he to take a second attempt at it.

But you can't really ask that of me, you would have to ask that of Mangy.

I'm not justifying the use of func_nobuild in areas it otherwise shouldn't be used. I indeed support the fact that we need to avoid using it as a cheap resolution to gameplay issues, but it's not hard to see why certain experimental game mode types might consider utilising it more than in a standard gamemode.

 

[Shmitz]

I wasn't saying you should remove engineers, I mean that on the rare occasion that I play without engineers in a public game, that game is more fun from my perspective.

That's not a problem with the class, that's a problem with people who play the class. Play with (good) offensive engineers before making that kind of judgment.

It's also slightly a problem with spies and the sapper mechanic, because they train novice engineer players that the only way you have any hope of keeping your equipment up is to build a nest in a corner.

Any engy that can make the cognitive leap past that training and start ninjaneering adds a lot more to the team.


Edit: Grazr, I think you're projecting certain thought processes into Mangy's head that I've seen no evidence of. During Aurora's development when I was actively discussing the nobuild "solution" with him directly, he made no mention of any of your apologetics. Rather than beating around your large and excessively verbose bush, I will try to state the point you keep missing as bluntly as I can: Aurora is a good example of why we need this discussion. It is not a redundant or superfluous discussion, and certainly has no lack of participants.

 

[grazr]

In that case let me go back to my original point, who here in this discussion is actually a culprit of this habit?

Since we all seem to agree that this is a bad habit that should be avoided, and seem to be complaining about maps none of which any of us have authored ourselves. Does that not make our involvement here un-intuitive.

Which then brings me to my second point. This feedback would probably be more useful, particularly to the map authors in question, in the culprit map threads. If not a func_nobuild [guide] in the resources area. Rather than sat in the "general mapping discussion" forum where it's more likely to be overlooked by those who need to hear/read it most.

It just seems silly to me that you're all "yeying" over this point, when the OP quite clearly shows the desire for this point to be acted over. Besides, there's not really much "discussion" involved in "i also agree and am appauled" for 3 pages. The 16 Thanks Rexy recieved pretty much demonstrates the unanimous agreement here.

If i am wrong in Mangy's intentions with Aurora, then maybe we give him more credit than he deserves. (No offence intended). I understand (as with any map) that the desires were for Aurora to work, but since he went from Alpha to RC, dismissing advice to change his layout dramaticly as it was too far into the detailing stage, that the projects aim (as an experiment) were met. Successfully executed or not. I only really say that because when ever i catch people discussing aurora, Mangy's response generally runs along the lines of "i only wanted to see if i could make this game mode, i did, and the experiments over".

 

[Leminnes]

Grazr, as far as I know, the main reason why Rexy brought it up was because of a playtest of Chicane last night where there was a nobuild brush on an opportune area of the map. Other than that, I'm not sure who else does this.

 

[grazr]

Then wouldn't logic dictate this kind of feedback to be posted in that thread, rather than in the general mapping discussion?

That's all i'm saying. Don't let my numerous posts fool you into thinking that i'm really bothered by this topic, people can talk about what ever they feel like. But whilst i agree with the OP and its numerous responses, including Shmitz's. I disagree on the usefullness of purpose of this thread in the grand scheme of actions that occur on this site.

If a map has an issue, provide that feedback in that maps thread.

If loads of maps suffer from the same issue, provide a guide that informs people how to properly use the tools available to us.

If it were an actual discussion i would probably be less inclined to point this out, but clearly everyone agrees. The issue of X maps using func_nobuild in inappropriate areas will likely remain unchanged because this discussion failed to reach the right people.

I'm not saying the topic doesn't have a right to be here, simply that this information needs to be aimed elsewhere.

 

[Boylee]

I think the reason Rexy wanted to start a discussion was because chicane wasn't the first time he'd run into this and wanted to trigger some discussion on the subject. Obviously I can't speak for him, that's just the impression I got. Personally, I've found the discussion around this issue interesting and informative and it will feed into future use of nobuild for me.

I agree that you could say this would be better posted in an individual map's thread, but I think discussion around the topic is definitely healthy, and dismissing it somewhat misses the point, the discussion doesn't have to hold wildy differing viewpoints to be informative. There are a fair few 'newbie' mappers here and although maybe not all are as committed as some of the veteran mappers, there are many who value the advice, feedback and information given by the 'vets' very highly, myself included. Being able to read discussions, however uniform, on pertinent topics like this is extremely helpful and it's for that reason that threads like this should exist, even if there sole eventual output is only a discussion of the topic.

I have to agree that the suggestion of a guide to recommended nobuild usage would be useful, maybe it should fall under the 'How Valve do it' style of guides as less people can flame it for being wrong that way.

 

[ScorpioUprising]

Pffffttt says I. While I agree the randomly nobuilding sections of your map is a bad idea, the critique of capture zones for CTF is just outright wrong. Several playtests of ctf_vitalism were ruined by players builiding inside of my capture lockers. You can whine all you want about me adjusting the lockers accordingly or some such nonsense, but I'll just go ahead and nobuild the area round the capture and save myself the grief of a broken map.

Not saying all capture points should have nobuild, but in my case it DEFINITELy improved the maps flow, and the only cost was one pissed of griefer engy.

 

[Tapp]

While a bit extreme, would a point_tesla be a good indication of a nobuild area? Or would players simply see it as a death trap?

 

[Rexy]

Grazr, as far as I know, the main reason why Rexy brought it up was because of a playtest of Chicane last night where there was a nobuild brush on an opportune area of the map. Other than that, I'm not sure who else does this.

No, I said it because it's a very widespread reoccurring issue. And not just specific to this contest, I've seen it early as the single stage payload contest. I figured it was something that was going to go away if people stopped using func_nobuild as it really should have very little use. You have to credit map authors who see all the tools available to them and want to use them--but it doesn't mean they need to.