Suggestion to the modeler guys, Red, Blu, and a neutrel skin for the saucer. The current skin could work well for Blu but with team colored Skins I could have them change to whomever caped the point on a KOTH map for example.
TF2Maps.net Major Mapping Contest #11: Mercs vs. Aliens - Sponsored by Ronin
- Thread starter Fruity Snacks
- Start date
We'd ask that you use the models provided (They are still a Work in progress thing). You can scale them as needed though.
evanonline
L420: High Member
- Mar 15, 2009
- 485
- 273
Oh man, I absolutely love the idea of one team setting up a fake UFO to scare the other team. Just a UFO on a poorly-concealed crane. (You guys can have that one on the house I have an idea for this already)
GooGuGajoob
L12: Pro-crastinator
- Mar 28, 2014
- 175
- 101
After participating in the 72hr contest, I'm really kind of excited only to map for contests as it really helped just get it done. But the rules for this contest just seem like you're saying 'These are the rules because I said so' and I'm not really sure I can really be bothered making a map just to fit for this contests criteria...are we meant to find inspiration out of a mistake? I don't get it..
Edit: Okay, I kind of take that back. Turns out your mothership having to be destroyed does make for some cool ideas...
Edit: Okay, I kind of take that back. Turns out your mothership having to be destroyed does make for some cool ideas...
Last edited:
At some stage, will it be possible for the UFO modeler(s) to take requests? Specifically things like a custom explosion, or panels removed from the UFO with the interior visible.
And if the modeler(s) can not take requests (which would be very understandable due to the number of mappers taking part), will it be okay to do these kind of modifications ourselves? Eg, would a modified saucer count as the "supplied model"?
Not ready to detail a request yet -- I'm still in planning, but this is the sort of thing I'd need to plan around, obviously.
And if the modeler(s) can not take requests (which would be very understandable due to the number of mappers taking part), will it be okay to do these kind of modifications ourselves? Eg, would a modified saucer count as the "supplied model"?
Not ready to detail a request yet -- I'm still in planning, but this is the sort of thing I'd need to plan around, obviously.
Chat with BANG!, Ronin or AyesDyef.
Especialy this would normaly be good for mvm, but then comes the next issue. Making it blow up and still be well visible can be harder, the mvm carrier is often less visible to spot at certain spots in the map. Especialy closer to the spawn which is where you usualy 'should' be fighting. To me this kinda makes it a waste. But even then, if you can remain at the front you can be rewarded with it.
(also, if you would make an mvm carrier ufo it should be similar in size to the normal carrier to make it have any sense. and this would make it very wide)
The problem i see with this contest is that some decisions are made that arent entirely logical (or just not explained enough). For example that the ufo explodes on both sides. For gameplay this shouldnt harm, but for the feeling of it making sense it does, it gives a major restriction on how you can theme your map. A simple 'Blow up that ship with the payload' scenario isnt possible with A/D PL. Thats what can harm.
The requirement of having it explode is good, but it should remain keeping sense. Thats why i think in A/D maps it should only explode on the victory of 1 team and not both (even in mvm where the enemy ship explodes on a succesful defense is valid - ideas already were given).
The 'play it safe' part isnt allways the case in contests. In fact i took a quite big gamble on intercept (which was worth it). Experimenting with gamemodes is actualy a good thing, as long as the gamemode makes sense and that requires a working hud. To me that should be the only requirement. After all, we had a A/D CTF gamemode before while it isnt official. I would say that such gamemodes should be accepted. They might often not be worth it and there might never be one in the contest, its still worthy to mention they are allowed so in case someone has an excelent idea that he can use it.
Even mvm_intercept in theory wouldnt be allowed since gravelpit mvm is quite a twist to 'mannhattan' mvm similar to how A/D CTF would be considered a twist to SD.
Giving examples of allowed custom modes at least gives a good boundary on accepted twists to gamemodes.
5CP = Each team has a UFO they're defending. They're trying to blow up the other UFO.
KOTH = Teams are trying to seize control of a laser with which to destroy a UFO.
A/D = Blue is clearing out red to make room for their UFO to swoop in and destroy red's UFO. On failure red's UFO destroys the blue one.
PL = Blue is guiding a UFO to destroy the red UFO. On failure red's UFO destroys the blue one.
PLR = The two teams are racing to blow up a single UFO.
TC = Teams fight to control multiple missile/laser installations that they want to use to blow up a UFO.
Arena = The surviving team gets to blow up a UFO.
CTF = Teams are trying to steal australium from the other team so they can power a rocket that will blow up the UFO.
DCP = Teams are trying to capture all points so they can power a laser to destroy a UFO.
MvM = Robots are trying to destroy a UFO the players are defending. On victory the players fire a weapon to destroy the robot UFO.
SD = Teams try to deliver a payload to a rocket so they can blow up a UFO.
There, every single game mode in TF2 now has a way to justify a UFO blowing up regardless of how the game ends. Even the modes no one likes! Now you can go make a map!
For me, I think the issue is it's lack of focus on actual maps. There might be hundreds if not thousands of ways to take out a spaceship. But come on, we're not getting a goal for map design, we're getting a goal on how to take out a mothership. To me, that seems a little stupid (no offense). Here at TF2maps.net we strive to create new, innovative, balanced, and fun maps for everyone to play. But this isn't a contest on mapping, this is a contest on how to destroy a mothership using a very precise mapping skill. A skill which few people here have mastered. I don't want this contest to be about taking out a mothership, I want this contest to be about how to make a map using a certain gamemode, or something we can be innovative with. Because this is very vague on what we're supposed to map.
A lot of those ideas seem to remove the "humans vs aliens" element that is heavily implied but not exactly a hard rule. or are just really forcing the idea in, like people are complaining about.
If it's implied, it's not actually a rule! :O
I have to agree with Alex on this, I feel this contest isn't really asking for well designed maps, but for maps with "gimmicks" and a cool looking final (which would get old after the first few time)
I think what you really want are maps with really cool and new themes, With a good fun layout. I think asking mappers to focus on how the map interacts with the mothership is boring. It should be the map which is telling the story, it should be the player experience. A good example is Mann Manor, the map tells a story through player experience. Though well detailed areas and props! The first time I played Mann Manor I understood the location straight away, and how the map slowly progresses you inside the Manor its self which is all beautifully detailed.
I think if you say, make a map which tells a story and is interesting to just walk around, I personally think the results would be amazing. Than having a map which isnt fun to play or just explore with a cool Mother ship destroying cut scene which the player cannot interactive.
Most of that probably didn't make much sense to you but hey.
I think what you really want are maps with really cool and new themes, With a good fun layout. I think asking mappers to focus on how the map interacts with the mothership is boring. It should be the map which is telling the story, it should be the player experience. A good example is Mann Manor, the map tells a story through player experience. Though well detailed areas and props! The first time I played Mann Manor I understood the location straight away, and how the map slowly progresses you inside the Manor its self which is all beautifully detailed.
I think if you say, make a map which tells a story and is interesting to just walk around, I personally think the results would be amazing. Than having a map which isnt fun to play or just explore with a cool Mother ship destroying cut scene which the player cannot interactive.
Most of that probably didn't make much sense to you but hey.
GooGuGajoob
L12: Pro-crastinator
- Mar 28, 2014
- 175
- 101
I don't get why you don't just reconsider the Contest idea, instead of just saying 'these will remain the rules because I said so.' You could easily be a lot more inviting to more mappers who have expressed their issues for this contest...all pretty much all about the exact same issue. The idea can work for the contest as it is now...yes, that's true, but it could easily be improved to allow for GREATER Creativity...which in the end isn't that what this contest is trying to sell?
But that's the entire point of a themed contest. You take a specific theme and see who can produce the best results within that framework.
The map workshop is 156 pages full of "cool and new themes, with a good fun layout." It's already a contest because some of them didn't work out, and some of them "won" the contest and made it to the showcase.
The map workshop is 156 pages full of "cool and new themes, with a good fun layout." It's already a contest because some of them didn't work out, and some of them "won" the contest and made it to the showcase.
GooGuGajoob
L12: Pro-crastinator
- Mar 28, 2014
- 175
- 101
Then I guess you'll just have to alienate a lot of mappers who have already expressed they're opinions about the contest, and probably won't participate as a result of it.
*** this is unofficial as of now, but I want to run this by you guys to see what you thought before committing to the change ***
There's a bunch of people who are upset, confused and not-happy with the rule regarding the motherships having to blow up, no matter the outcome of the map. I come forward with a HYPOTHETICAL change to that rule that I think would be good and help a LOT of people out.
Again: Please note this is NOT an official annoucement of change, but merely checking with you guys to see what you like about it.
The CURRENT rule is:
The UNOFFICIAL CHANGE to the rule would be:
What does this mean?
If you're on any Attack/Defend Map (Payload or Capture point), then BLU winning will trigger the destruction of the mothership. If RED wins, then the mothership can either be destroyed or NOT destroyed. It is now entirely up to you if you'd like to do that. If you're on a symmetrical map, like 5CP, KotH, SD or CTF, then whoever wins the map (however that happens) is the team that 'destroys' the Mothership (Symmetrical maps are unaffected by this possible rule change).
Whats the difference?
This now removes the mandatory requirement for Red to have to destroy the mothership. No more mandatory requirement for Red to have to fire a laser at a UFO because time ran out. This should lower any sort of creative/narrative barrier that we have created unexpectedly, and more people can join up. This proposed rule change won't mean you can't follow the current rule set, but it provides for more narrative possibilities.
I would greatly appreciate any feedback you all have in regards to this. Would you like this new rule to replace the current one? Would you rather see another change? I can't change the entire contest around, but I think this was the biggest/most confusing rule that people had.
EDIT:
If this was changed to the proposed rule, what would people think:
There's a bunch of people who are upset, confused and not-happy with the rule regarding the motherships having to blow up, no matter the outcome of the map. I come forward with a HYPOTHETICAL change to that rule that I think would be good and help a LOT of people out.
Again: Please note this is NOT an official annoucement of change, but merely checking with you guys to see what you like about it.
The CURRENT rule is:
The UNOFFICIAL CHANGE to the rule would be:
What does this mean?
If you're on any Attack/Defend Map (Payload or Capture point), then BLU winning will trigger the destruction of the mothership. If RED wins, then the mothership can either be destroyed or NOT destroyed. It is now entirely up to you if you'd like to do that. If you're on a symmetrical map, like 5CP, KotH, SD or CTF, then whoever wins the map (however that happens) is the team that 'destroys' the Mothership (Symmetrical maps are unaffected by this possible rule change).
Whats the difference?
This now removes the mandatory requirement for Red to have to destroy the mothership. No more mandatory requirement for Red to have to fire a laser at a UFO because time ran out. This should lower any sort of creative/narrative barrier that we have created unexpectedly, and more people can join up. This proposed rule change won't mean you can't follow the current rule set, but it provides for more narrative possibilities.
I would greatly appreciate any feedback you all have in regards to this. Would you like this new rule to replace the current one? Would you rather see another change? I can't change the entire contest around, but I think this was the biggest/most confusing rule that people had.
EDIT:
If this was changed to the proposed rule, what would people think:
Last edited:
I'm not participating myself, but I would like to state that I think this is a much better idea.
If you are changing the rule I think it should be destruction on [attackers and/or defenders] victory. Not your proposition of [attackers or both].