WiP in WiP, post your screenshots!
- Thread starter Arhurt
- Start date
Just some notes on the detailing that I know was tossed around.
The red skybox buildings don't fit with the map, and the lighting on them is wonky anyways. I would suggest removing them and maybe either doing more tree's, or some brushwork buildings.
You have a lot of yellow barrels on the interior, which isn't a bad thing, but some people will point out that isn't very exciting. It doesn't bug me as much as other people, but just has a heads up.
You don't carry barrels of radioactive waste on their side with a claw (or on a conveyor on their side) unless you want to have a very bad accident.
I can tell your final strech is heavily influenced by dustbowl (and vector), even though you might not have intended it that way, but the final screenshot basically looks like an indoor dustbowl with a spytech theme, and the rest feel like ctf_vector. (I'll assume that vector was less influential that dustbowl, but the final cap area look like a direct clone of dustbowl 3-2.)
The red skybox buildings don't fit with the map, and the lighting on them is wonky anyways. I would suggest removing them and maybe either doing more tree's, or some brushwork buildings.
You have a lot of yellow barrels on the interior, which isn't a bad thing, but some people will point out that isn't very exciting. It doesn't bug me as much as other people, but just has a heads up.
You don't carry barrels of radioactive waste on their side with a claw (or on a conveyor on their side) unless you want to have a very bad accident.
I can tell your final strech is heavily influenced by dustbowl (and vector), even though you might not have intended it that way, but the final screenshot basically looks like an indoor dustbowl with a spytech theme, and the rest feel like ctf_vector. (I'll assume that vector was less influential that dustbowl, but the final cap area look like a direct clone of dustbowl 3-2.)
I have actually never played vector... Its pretty equally influenced by both dustbowl and goldrush. I know it actually does look a lot like dustbowl 3-2 but it plays massively different for a few reasons that shouldn't be overlooked:
1. The drop to the pit is one way. If you go down... you're down.
2. The sewer system that is down there connects to both the left and right side houses. (in dustbowl it only connects near the center bridge and in goldrush it connects to the center area as well as having a house that flanks the back right)
3. Manngrove has bridges (in the form of pipe systems) that connects both ways. (In goldrush you have to drop and climb to reach the flank area on the right and the left house has drop that requires rocket/sticky jumping to climb. In dustbowl you can only push on the left and not the right.)
4. The left house in dustbowl requires one to go into the alley or rocket/sticky jump to the otherside. in Manngrove its actually pretty easy for the blue team to pass unscathed across the bridge at the back of the choke. I did this to encourage blu to build/attack from the back of the right house.
It is certainly influenced, but it plays totally differently. I will show pictures to illustrate these points better when i have a bit more time. Please feel free to DL my map though as I love getting further feedback.
We've discussed this map yesterday in chat, and I think we agreed on this conclusion: the map is overdetailed. Ignoring the fact that there are some weird theme transitions and weird prop usage, you generally have too much crap lying around. Someone said that while running through the map, they had problems distinguishing the gameplay areas from the detail areas. It's called density of detailing. You don't want to shove props and overlays and brushes everywhere - that's bad. Detailing areas of interest while leaving others somewhat bland is the way to go. With a map as crowded as this, the detail can be distracting and get in the way of gameplay. Oh, and I think I recall someone saying that the lighting is too even throughout the map.
Overall, it seems like a good start - we were gonna play it last night (to harshly criticize the gameplay as well
) but for whatever reason didn't.
Overall, it seems like a good start - we were gonna play it last night (to harshly criticize the gameplay as well
) but for whatever reason didn't.Thanks for the feedback seba... I am familiar with the article. I think its especially important on CP maps where you don't want to distract people from the MOST important areas (the cp's of course). But I think there are some important things to consider when attempting to apply that philosophy to maps...
1. Payload maps have one focal area that is constantly shifting forward ot backward. As a result the detailing should be centralized around the path of the cart not just control points. This is especially true given that payloads glow when they cannot see the cart directly.
2. A good reason to limit the density of detailing is to prevent fps issues... manngrove is optomized to the point that I never drop below 200 fps. Lots of the examples are from maps that came from release... newer machines can handle more detail with ease.
3. Players threshhold for "pretty" isn't what it used to be. Maps like mountainlab, doublecross, and barnblitz (just to name a few) have changed player perspective on what "detailed" is.
4. When you're attempting to get todays players to take notice and get the reactions I've been getting its not a bad idea to take some extra time to increase the average amount of detail across the map. However it is important that while the primary route is more detailed than the secondary or tirtiary routes.
I'm responding on my phone so I'm sorry for spelling/gramatical errors... also I'm out of time atm.
1. Payload maps have one focal area that is constantly shifting forward ot backward. As a result the detailing should be centralized around the path of the cart not just control points. This is especially true given that payloads glow when they cannot see the cart directly.
2. A good reason to limit the density of detailing is to prevent fps issues... manngrove is optomized to the point that I never drop below 200 fps. Lots of the examples are from maps that came from release... newer machines can handle more detail with ease.
3. Players threshhold for "pretty" isn't what it used to be. Maps like mountainlab, doublecross, and barnblitz (just to name a few) have changed player perspective on what "detailed" is.
4. When you're attempting to get todays players to take notice and get the reactions I've been getting its not a bad idea to take some extra time to increase the average amount of detail across the map. However it is important that while the primary route is more detailed than the secondary or tirtiary routes.
I'm responding on my phone so I'm sorry for spelling/gramatical errors... also I'm out of time atm.
Last edited:
None of the maps you listed are as over detailed as yours, even Mountain Lab.
Optimizing doesn't make it less crazy looking.
The focus of a payload map is not the bomb and that doesn't make it better. The focus is the capture points, like always.
It sounds like you aren't going to change this, which is fine. You made a map that SPUF and some Facepunchers will shit themselves over. "This guy can place a prop_static? HOLY FUCK I love this map." It's unfortunate and disappointing that you are unwilling to actually take the time to understand the ideas behind density of detailing. You've got a whole website of people here willing to help you and you're spurning us because of momentary fame.
Optimizing doesn't make it less crazy looking.
The focus of a payload map is not the bomb and that doesn't make it better. The focus is the capture points, like always.
It sounds like you aren't going to change this, which is fine. You made a map that SPUF and some Facepunchers will shit themselves over. "This guy can place a prop_static? HOLY FUCK I love this map." It's unfortunate and disappointing that you are unwilling to actually take the time to understand the ideas behind density of detailing. You've got a whole website of people here willing to help you and you're spurning us because of momentary fame.
yyler, I'm sorry it came off that I was unwilling to change based upon feedback... that is actually the opposite of the case. If that continues to be the general consensus then you can bet that ill be scaling the detail back. I was simply giving a counter point to seba's point.
And I'm not totally certain that i agree with you that the focus of payload maps is till the capture point as opposed to the path of the cart. I can give some examples (with pictures) later.
Thanks for the feedback either way. Sorry if my response gave the wrong impression.
And I'm not totally certain that i agree with you that the focus of payload maps is till the capture point as opposed to the path of the cart. I can give some examples (with pictures) later.
Thanks for the feedback either way. Sorry if my response gave the wrong impression.
- Apr 14, 2009
- 819
- 1,217
the map looks fine, i dunno why people are getting their panties in a bunch. it's not overdetailed, it probably is a bit visually noisy/messy in the outdoors areas, the -final thing might help a bit
you should compile with the -final stuff that makes the prop lighting look better
you should compile with the -final stuff that makes the prop lighting look better
Last edited:
Don't worry, this is the general response that people here give to maps that appear to be pretty decent, don't come from this forum (since like 90% of the official maps started here) and are being idoled over by other sites. We tend to be harsher to outsiders than newer people in here, no clue why, probably because no one knows we are here and where the custom's gone official maps come from and people here get angry when we aren't acknowledged... ( everyone has some degree of an ego...)
I think both you and yyler are right when it comes to detailing payload maps. You are right that the area's inbetween the control points shouldn't be bland, but should be over detailed, and yyler is right in saying that the control point should be the focus of detailing. Its just about find a balance, personally I find that your balance in detailing is a bit off.
I suggest that when you get a chance, make a thread for this map in our map showcase sub forum. Here you will get some quality feedback that is easier to manage than having to shift through this forum.
I think both you and yyler are right when it comes to detailing payload maps. You are right that the area's inbetween the control points shouldn't be bland, but should be over detailed, and yyler is right in saying that the control point should be the focus of detailing. Its just about find a balance, personally I find that your balance in detailing is a bit off.
I suggest that when you get a chance, make a thread for this map in our map showcase sub forum. Here you will get some quality feedback that is easier to manage than having to shift through this forum.
I sure will... I have a really busy day today, so it won't be til later. In addition to other changes to the map I will be adding a few other things too:
A flythrough vid.
Custom intro movie.
Custom pictures for the map.
And possibly a new custom explosion.
A flythrough vid.
Custom intro movie.
Custom pictures for the map.
And possibly a new custom explosion.
yeah, the turntable is odd. theres no real reason for it to be there, like no other tracks it could connect to
I used it as a feature to stop the forward momentum of blu teams. That way red can rebuild at point 3 without having the blu team steamrolling forward.
I thought it looked like a security feature next to the giant door... perhaps adding some side tracks would help...
Thanks for the feedback guys.
I thought it looked like a security feature next to the giant door... perhaps adding some side tracks would help...
Thanks for the feedback guys.
