Discussion in 'Mapping Questions & Discussion' started by Arhurt, Aug 28, 2008.
You're absolutely right as well. Thats a good note to end on for this discussion in the WIP thread.
In some cases you can already predict its not going to work. As for example alot of narrow ways is in many cases already going in a bad direction. Taking areas into height is also risky and if there is no reasoning behind it then again, its often an indication your idea is flawed. These predictions can be made quite safe. Since if you had a reason to do so then thats part of the idea you want to make. Getting it to work is sometimes the chalenge. Otherwise i could have scrapped intercept instantly.
Players are just like computer code. If you dont properly trigger them they wont perform what they should. So in a certain way you need to guide them. The rest is just rand();
Do predict the basic behaviour, but dont try to strictly predict them. If you make a doorway with option left or right where left is more ideal. If they go right just let them. This is indeed something you cant predict and is part of the playtesting requirement. A fully static map isnt good after all.
It depends on what you scrap. Some things have been proven to fail often. If you think your idea isnt going to work, dont use it. There you save time. Scrapping a whole map rarely falls under this, and if it does you often just scrap the idea. Once you have a full map you can still change the gamemode. So on that scrapping is indeed less efficient. But this already got past the first few thinking moments for a reason.
A theme can be part of the gameplay. And your specialy constructed area is most likely made to be a full part of it (capture area's etc). And for that reason you can adjust the control point to the theme. But you can still do that afterward, rough placeholders can still be changed to nearly everything else. And this is what you should do on detailing. But it can also be counter productive since beauty can hinder gameplay. And when players get anoyed it isnt a good thing.
A theme simply makes it easier for some people to get their map into a shape as they got reference images. This isnt the case for everyone however. And its also wise to not strictly follow a certain theme because it will give you restrictions that are going to hinder.
For intercept i used a pyramid, but the facade is something that is highly unrealistic. But since i found gameplay more important i was still able to get it to fit nicely. And that is only because the gameplay shape has been set, i only had to match the visuals.
There are many solutions, and my own ones might be the opposite of yours. But both are true. It depends on the mapper. Im one that focusses on gameplay and decides to detail afterward.
(also, i mainly play just 3 gamemodes in tf2: payload, A/D cp, mvm)
undertome a2 is coming along alright
You do know we have WebM support now, right? You don't have to post massive, ugly GIFs anymore.
That looks ridiculously confusing to navigate.
Looks no worse than ctf_thundermountain to me
Zed isn't wrong, the map needs way more visual cues to help players not get lost. Hence one of the reason's it isn't out yet.
Weeeeell that's not saying much. Oh God, I apologize, it was just too easy
ctf_thundermountain isn't hard to navigate at all
I've almost never had trouble navigating Thunder Mountain, even though it's absolutely huge
I don't think I've ever seen a map design that plays around the functionality of grapple hooks to such an impressive extent. Then again maybe I just don't play enough mannpower.
I'm interested in seeing how this plays with combat though; atm it just looks to me like the new surfing.
To be fair, I was holding the speedy powerup for that gif.
But yeah, at the moment there is only one good mannpower map, ctf_hellfire.. thundermountain and gorge are passable, but don't feel natural for the gamemode. As for combat, I'll have to see when I get a2 out, I can't really test this with bots. (A1 did not test well, but I have made heavy modifications since then)
I had an exciting day of making minor changes to Soma based on feedback Monday's test. I'd like to run another test to determine what to keep where to focus the next round of heavy changes before making any deep cuts. Right now it looks like I will be leaving Point A mostly the same, but rebuilding the area in between Points A and B from scratch. I've been tossing around ideas for a completely new Point B and Blue Spawn, so that's nice I guess. Writing this it occurs to me that no one will read this.
Since that's not very sexy I thought I'd share some pictures from some 1v1 arenas I've been working on. These probably aren't very good 1v1 arenas, not that I have any bearing one what qualifies a map as such. A dull life and unlimited access to graph paper have left me with a large quantity of rooms that probably would never work in the context of a map. I really just wanted to dump some of them
it's [s ] to do strikethroughs.
Oh no! The incorrect strikethrough spoiled my incredibly funny joke!
I turned my computer off and was like "You know, I think I did those strikethroughs wrong"
I should do more stuff around eleven, it seems to be the only time I think clearly
some more conceptual stuff. Thoughts? Trying to balance the classic TF2 feel with experimentation with foundry's theme.
The ground is very stark white and very reflective. I would consider toning down the HDR or something.
Genesis detailing. Yes there's a leak I know.
Playing around with using blocks of light and dustmotes from the broken roof. I think I made the light glow on the bulbs a bit strong though.
One building down, 30 to go.
Separate names with a comma.