CTF Urban Brook 2015-09-11

An urban ctf map

  1. hutty

    aa hutty

    Messages:
    471
    Positive Ratings:
    372
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2015
  2. Pocket

    aa Pocket func_croc

    Messages:
    4,489
    Positive Ratings:
    2,219
    Some feedback from today's test:

    First off, there are a buttload of props that threw collision errors in the console when I loaded 'er up. I don't know if this causes any real issues, but just for the sake of cleanup, go through and find the props in question (the errors will identify them) and set them all to have no collision manually.

    Nextly, optimization! Your map seems to have no areaportals, and that's not good. I was having issues that were probably caused by something going wrong with my computer (since they didn't go away when we moved on to the next map), but there are still some spots where too much stuff renders and putting areaportals across every doorway and window would help.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    It might even behoove you to use some areaportalwindows here and there too, since there seem to be a few longish sightlines going through windows.

    [​IMG]

    The white brick wall turns gray in a couple spots. Not sure what's causing that; usually it's because they're two different materials that use the same texture but only one has bumpmapping, but I don't think there's a brick wall without bumpmaps, so *shrug*

    [​IMG]

    Common error here; you want to smoosh the door textures right up next to each other so there's no frame in between. Also I think you made them just a unit or two too short; the frame on the top seems skinnier than the sides.

    [​IMG]

    The bottom step on both these staircases is shorter than the rest, and it looks like the lower staircase is a 12:16 slope? Don't do that; stick to the 8:12 and then it'll be easier to ensure that you can keep your floors on grid. Also, that one inset on the left seems to be missing the dirt at the bottom. Might want to fix that. And what's up with all the textures that are at 45 degree angles? I spotted a couple (including the edge of a piece of wood) and wondered if the bulk of the map was at a 45 degree angle, but no.

    [​IMG]

    The taillights on this van are out of sync.

    Gotta say, I'm impressed by the differences in detailing between the two bases. I didn't even notice it at first. Not enough custom maps bother, in my opinion.
     
  3. Pocket

    aa Pocket func_croc

    Messages:
    4,489
    Positive Ratings:
    2,219
    Another thing:

    [​IMG]

    You should probably tweak your respawn room visualizers so it's just one symbol in the exact center. You can add nodraw brushes to it to pad out the width.
     
  4. hutty

    aa hutty

    Messages:
    471
    Positive Ratings:
    372
    @stevethepocket I just noticed that you have posted here, I did re-texture every primitive in the entire map (for no-draw-purposes) for the next version since then. I'll have to look into your comments in depth later.

    Anyways

    I got a few general questions about my map.

    First of all ... the framerate fucking sucks. On my setup a tf2 map should be never be below 200 fps, and this was flying all over the 120 range. This, however was only during the test with players on it. Without players the map runs at a happy 240+ fps

    This was after I went through the basic optimization steps. (nodraw everything and only texture visible faces and hint off the intel rooms from mid (area portals are there too, but they've been in the map for a while (@stevethepocket ... maybe that specific build didn't have the portals checked when I compiled it))



    So, im at a loss on how to further optimize it.

    (image with area portal locations)
    [​IMG]

    Secondly, something about the gameplay has always bugged me regarding the extreme height in the spawn and intel areas. I was wondering if raising the floors would help that a bit, or if you guys have any other suggestions.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    The map download is here http://forums.tf2maps.net/downloads.php?do=file&id=6380
    It is also on the servers as b5a (I uploaded the wrong file and had to reupload under a new name .... speaking of which ... the download above may or may not be packed)
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2015
  5. worMatty

    aa worMatty Repacking Evangelist

    Messages:
    1,072
    Positive Ratings:
    834
    I don't think the height difference in that area is a problem. It's quite interesting and it's only one of three routes attackers can take in to and out of the base, so you don't have to worry about it being easy to camp with a high sentry. What is it about it that bugs you?

    When I play the map, I seem to find that when an attacker successfully defeats our flag defences and takes the flag, then it's a a sure-fire thing that he will capture it in his base. It feels like there isn't much chance of my team being able to get the flag back. I don't know why that is, but I think it might be a combination of things:
    • Outside the bases is quite an open space, so it's great for scouts, and if the attacking team has soldiers, demo men or a sentry then it's hard to get past them to the flag carrier.
    • The outside space is a very short distance from the interior of each team's base. Once the flag carrier leaves your base, he doesn't have to run very far to get to his own, where he is likely to receive a lot of support from his defending team mates.
    • The spawn rooms are on one side of the base, which means it takes longer to intercept a player who takes the far side exit than if the spawns were in the middle, equidistant between all possible flag carrier exists. The best option for people wanting to intercept is to go to the enemy's flag room, but that will probably have sentries in it.
    To summarise, I feel like there should be more of a chance to retrieve the stolen flag. From conversations with people about CTF, I believe this is a problem with the game mode in TF2 due mainly to the scout and sentries, which is one of the reasons why spawn rooms are rarely built behind the flag.

    There are some small detail or brush problems in b5a. When you go RC, you should have a 'perfection pass' where you ask people to scrutinise everything.

    If you need a second opinion on visibility optimisation I would be happy to take a look at the VMF.