PL Stroika
- Thread starter Sergis
- Start date
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,874
- 1,258
You already know my stance on overly ridiculous dynmic elements, but with that being said, I'll offer some feedback on why I think they might be too much, and how I would improve them if I needed to do some this elabrate (You may already know this, but might as well put it down)
1. The Fetch n' Return track piece: My major concern is that it will disrupt the flow of the game, it makes a PL map into a small ctf map, even though it is for a short time, so defenders will get a little confused (do they defend the piece, or do they defend the cart?). They can on the other hand use this as a time to build their defenses up the road, but I don't think (based on my little knowledge of player psychology) players will do that. Also, since the model is not a typical intel, people will be very confused on what to do, so you will need to find a way to show the players, amongst the battle, what they need to do.
2. The Crane: I figured someone was going to do this eventually... The way you have it, again changes how the game is being played out, do defenders defend pick up, or drop off? It doesn't look like the drop-off zone is visible from that pick-up zone, so players again may get very confused on where the payload is and what they need to do -even though it is something simple-. (Perhaps use a sound a que? I think there might be a sound-bite of the annoucer saying "Get to the cart!" that would help... or usage of the hydro arrow signs may work... using both might solve your problem of player confusion)
I do respect and applaud the creativity and ingenuity of what you have done, I just think that it will take a lot of work and a lot of understanding of gameplay for it to work well. You shouldn't ride on the fact people will have played this map over and over, you need to make it so that people can first-time-out pick up on what is needed.
1. The Fetch n' Return track piece: My major concern is that it will disrupt the flow of the game, it makes a PL map into a small ctf map, even though it is for a short time, so defenders will get a little confused (do they defend the piece, or do they defend the cart?). They can on the other hand use this as a time to build their defenses up the road, but I don't think (based on my little knowledge of player psychology) players will do that. Also, since the model is not a typical intel, people will be very confused on what to do, so you will need to find a way to show the players, amongst the battle, what they need to do.
2. The Crane: I figured someone was going to do this eventually... The way you have it, again changes how the game is being played out, do defenders defend pick up, or drop off? It doesn't look like the drop-off zone is visible from that pick-up zone, so players again may get very confused on where the payload is and what they need to do -even though it is something simple-. (Perhaps use a sound a que? I think there might be a sound-bite of the annoucer saying "Get to the cart!" that would help... or usage of the hydro arrow signs may work... using both might solve your problem of player confusion)
I do respect and applaud the creativity and ingenuity of what you have done, I just think that it will take a lot of work and a lot of understanding of gameplay for it to work well. You shouldn't ride on the fact people will have played this map over and over, you need to make it so that people can first-time-out pick up on what is needed.
i'm worried about the crane too, simply for the distance it moves the cart.
Also, how many damn control points do you have?
Also, how many damn control points do you have?
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,874
- 1,258
The defenders won't really have to choose between defending cart and track as the track parts will be close enough to the cart to make it easy to defend both at the same time. The track pieces will be nearby and directly visible from the gap area, also I plan to place the attentionwhoring hydrosigns near them and if that won't be enough, I might even try to make an all-explaining sign or even a billboard.
The crane will automatically pick up the cart and place it on another track, so the map goes from PL to a little A/D to break through to the cart and back to PL. There isn't really a moment where the defenders have to choose what to defend. The dropoff is not visible from pickup. I plan to deal with it with some signage, maybe hydrosigns, proper mapflow and maybe I will also add a track leading up to dropoff. There indeed is a "Get to the cart!" soundbyte, but I can't seem to get team-based announcements to work. I tried that in Namicott (because payload logic kills the "We have capped/lost the CP" announcements), but somehow it only worked on listenserver and stopped working after the first time in the playtest.
I do plan on trying to make the map as easy to understand as possible. I don't want this map to repeat the mistakes of Morras Castle.
I have 7 CPs. They are kinda close together though, I just placed them at all places that would make a good checkpoint - after the yet-unimplemented crusher, after the track gap, on turntable, at intel pickup and dropoff, before the final push and the final CP. I might remove 1st, 3rd and 6th.
The crane will automatically pick up the cart and place it on another track, so the map goes from PL to a little A/D to break through to the cart and back to PL. There isn't really a moment where the defenders have to choose what to defend. The dropoff is not visible from pickup. I plan to deal with it with some signage, maybe hydrosigns, proper mapflow and maybe I will also add a track leading up to dropoff. There indeed is a "Get to the cart!" soundbyte, but I can't seem to get team-based announcements to work. I tried that in Namicott (because payload logic kills the "We have capped/lost the CP" announcements), but somehow it only worked on listenserver and stopped working after the first time in the playtest.
I do plan on trying to make the map as easy to understand as possible. I don't want this map to repeat the mistakes of Morras Castle.
I have 7 CPs. They are kinda close together though, I just placed them at all places that would make a good checkpoint - after the yet-unimplemented crusher, after the track gap, on turntable, at intel pickup and dropoff, before the final push and the final CP. I might remove 1st, 3rd and 6th.
I still stand by "Doing something overly ridiculous is extremely risky and should only be done by those who fully know what they are doing" ...
... I don't know if you fully know what you are doing, but you seemed to have planned a lot of this out.
Best of luck.
... I don't know if you fully know what you are doing, but you seemed to have planned a lot of this out.
Best of luck.
Dragonic
L1: Registered
- Dec 30, 2011
- 34
- 3
Looks great so far. I can see what others are saying about how this map can be confusing for players.
On another note, how do you plan on implementing these two:
- An upward moving spinning turntable
and
- A platform with a part of the track, lowered by another crane
On another note, how do you plan on implementing these two:
- An upward moving spinning turntable
and
- A platform with a part of the track, lowered by another crane
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,874
- 1,258
I can't really decide if I should let players ride the cart when it's being lifted by the crane. On one hand, that would be cool, on the other, players up there might experience fps drops, they will see areas they're not supposed to see and there will be a lot of geometry popping in, I'll have to figure out what to do with players that fall off the cart because a walkable area that high is a huge height advantage and if I make it lower, it'll mess up the optimization, also the way I have it, players have to constantly move or the cart will move out from under them... but even with all this crap, it'd be cool to ride the thing.
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,874
- 1,258
After taking a shower, thinking of the best way to draw the sign for the track repair thing and remembering the shit I went through with Morras, I've remembered that if I have to draw a special sign for a feature, it's too complex for TF2. Therefore, if in the first playtest with no signs the track repair will prove to be too confusing, I will remove it.
Another feature that might get cut is the retreating container forwardspawn for the Red team.
Originally, I intended for Red to spawn in the container directly, but since I can't parent func_respawnroom or func_changeclass, I made teleporters from the main spawn to container. I kinda feel that this is a lame solution, so I will try to make a segmented respawnroom along the track that I will enable/disable along the way. If that won't work, goodbye another dynamic feature.
Another feature that might get cut is the retreating container forwardspawn for the Red team.
Originally, I intended for Red to spawn in the container directly, but since I can't parent func_respawnroom or func_changeclass, I made teleporters from the main spawn to container. I kinda feel that this is a lame solution, so I will try to make a segmented respawnroom along the track that I will enable/disable along the way. If that won't work, goodbye another dynamic feature.
Last edited:
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,874
- 1,258
Well, that seemed to go well. Interesting how the standart 4/8 spawntimes and 270 sec per CP worked just fine, it's quite possible that I won't even need to change those.
The teleporters will be removed, along with taking the fall damage. I feel that the teleporting thing was the most gimmicky part, everything else is kinda "inline" with the map and gametype. The trackrepair didn't seem to cause problems, so it stays.
The highlighted bottle is a physprop that I use to open the doors in the beginning. I keep the cart model a prop_dynamic because it is less buggy. I'll try to parent bottle to cart model instead of tracktrain and see if it removes the glow and fixes the speccam.
What I didn't enjoy was comments like "sad that it's actually balanced". It's as if some people believe that if a map has a bit more nonstandart elements than usual, it must be bad no matter what.
The teleporters will be removed, along with taking the fall damage. I feel that the teleporting thing was the most gimmicky part, everything else is kinda "inline" with the map and gametype. The trackrepair didn't seem to cause problems, so it stays.
The highlighted bottle is a physprop that I use to open the doors in the beginning. I keep the cart model a prop_dynamic because it is less buggy. I'll try to parent bottle to cart model instead of tracktrain and see if it removes the glow and fixes the speccam.
What I didn't enjoy was comments like "sad that it's actually balanced". It's as if some people believe that if a map has a bit more nonstandart elements than usual, it must be bad no matter what.
Or that if you make a map, it's gonna be crap. Kinda messed up imo.
I wasn't there for the test, but how many people do you think knew about track repair ahead of time? It's been a talked about element in your thread and others, and I'm just wondering if it seemed okay because a bunch of people that bother to read the forums knew about it or what.
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,874
- 1,258
making the teleport replacement
I'm sure a lot of people knew it, however nobody ever really stopped and asked "wtf do we do here" so I'm assuming its alright the way it is.
I'm sure a lot of people knew it, however nobody ever really stopped and asked "wtf do we do here" so I'm assuming its alright the way it is.
Get some people who have no clue what you're map is about, and play it.
That will test whether or not the element is good or not.
That will test whether or not the element is good or not.
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,874
- 1,258
