CTF-Ditcher - need help testing

[adib]

Okay, let me see... Some of you those OLD UT mappers can take a look at this map how it's done by a new guy - I'm talking about combos especially which have ZERO ISSUES in this map.

What do you mean by "combos"?

However... there is a fact to be taken in account:

Code: Select all

CTFReport: --- Reporting AlternatePaths setup: ---
CTFReport: For Team 0 = 24 pieces.
CTFReport: For Team 1 = 0 pieces.

Blue Team should be balanced - but this mistake is acceptable

It's actually not clear to me if AlternatePaths make a path to a team's own or opposite base. I left some for the red team assuming they make alternate path to reach blue base, but is this assumption correct?

=MERGED=

Just to follow up EG's point about the lifts, here's AeonFlux running in place on one of them (not sure which) - basically, she got stuck there.
Ditcher.jpg

SOLVED! This was because I forgot to Tag the mover "blueLift1", same tag as the path objects. The mover wasn't linked to the path. Also, LiftExits were too close to the mover, collisions were slightly overlapping. Now bots wait for the elevator properly.

Now I'll research about alternate paths and then beef up weaponry and health/armor.

[sektor2111]

You can get some data from here:
https://hofgamingclan.com/forums/viewto ... t=10#p3575

[adib]

I updated the ZIP attached in the original post with the latest version. I'm not finding any further problem and level seems ready for a first art pass. Gonna wait a few days, forget about the level and then play it again. Meanwhile I still appreciate your comments. Gonna look for these UEd plugins you guys use, I'm seeing very different UI from stock UEd here.

Mods let me know if I'm flooding the forum.

[sektor2111]

Mods let me know if I'm flooding the forum.

I don't see any flood.... but I see problems in updating - newer file should be renamed because already a public file with similar name is being released.

[OjitroC]

Gonna look for these UEd plugins you guys use, I'm seeing very different UI from stock UEd here.

That may depend on which UT/UEd version you are using.

For sektor's MapGarbage tool, see this thread f=5&t=5695 and the latest posts in particular or this f=34&t=502 for a direct download from the HoF forum.

The AlternatePaths and DefensePoints are just a little unbalanced

Spoiler

CTFReport: --- Reporting AlternatePaths setup: ---
CTFReport: For Team 0 = 8 pieces.
CTFReport: For Team 1 = 9 pieces.

DefenseChecks: Map has 6 DefensePoint Actors for team 0.
DefenseChecks: Map has 4 DefensePoint Actors for team 1.

[papercoffee]

Mods let me know if I'm flooding the forum.

Not flooding anything.
But please refrain from double-posting within a 24 hour limit if no one has answered after you.
You can edit your posts to add new content.

[OjitroC]

Just to point out that, in the new version, the rocketlauncher ammo is Unrealshare rather than the Botpack rocket pack - tihs is OK for plain UT (as UT will swap them) but if one uses any weapons mutator then they won't get swapped and will be unuseable - similarly if one uses MrLoathsome's UT2U1 mutator that basically keeps any Unreal weapons in the map.

[TexasGtar]

Nice layout for a first map. You are obviously not a noob to gaming. The gameplay is decent here. You have nooks and crannies and a few good lines of sight.
It's a little too linear for me, but like I said, it is pretty good for a first effort in the editor. I think you can embellish a lot. And for this map to be enjoyed by many you need to continue to embellish it.
By that I mean it would be good if there was something unique and pretty to look at. Interesting ceiling designs. Beam work. Lights. More than 1 texture. In ctf it is good to have the symmetry so it is fair for both sides since I think most people play against bots. Both sides should be fair. A good way to test this is to run bot vs bots. 4 on 4 or 8 on 8. Whatever works good. And run lots of test matches and see if the scores are even. If the red team always has 5 caps and blue team rarely gets any it might be lopsided somewhere.

You basically have a lot of subtracted brushes. I don't think I saw an added brush anywhere. Not that that is a bad thing. It is just too plain for me. No flavor or ambiance. Gameplay is good but with no eye candy, it won't have much replayability. Nothing to bring the player back to play it again.

I'm not sure what kind of feedback you are looking for. This map is really , in my opinion, in an early stage of development. Not really ready for testing quite yet.
Don't forget to add in a screenshot and a player count.

Also don't forget to align your textures once you decide which ones you are going to use.

I'll come back and test some more once it is a little more down the line to completion. Anyway, a very good start and nice effort on the layout.

Also . something to think about, .,,,... this map is pretty simple and runs well. But if you start finishing it off there may be a reason to go with ramps instead of stairs for the poly counts. I know there is an advantage to using semi solids but I believe they still count as polys that have to be rendered. This isn't really an issue in a map this size where the poly counts stay low, but just something to consider down the line.

[adib]

I'm not sure what kind of feedback you are looking for. This map is really , in my opinion, in an early stage of development. Not really ready for testing quite yet.

Thanks for playing. Yes, this is usually called a "blockout" or "greybox", there's no art or proper lighting, just layout and gameplay. But I understand, people usually ask this forum for testing later, when the level is almost finished, right?
The kind of feedback I was looking for is more on the technical side, I guess. And I'm getting lots of valuable ones in this thread. Btw, thanks for the reminder about the player count.

I'll come back and test some more once it is a little more down the line to completion. Anyway, a very good start and nice effort on the layout.

Coolz! Yep, I'm gonna start a first art pass on it prolly next week.

Also . something to think about, .,,,... this map is pretty simple and runs well. But if you start finishing it off there may be a reason to go with ramps instead of stairs for the poly counts. I know there is an advantage to using semi solids but I believe they still count as polys that have to be rendered. This isn't really an issue in a map this size where the poly counts stay low, but just something to consider down the line.

There will be an optimization pass later, for sure. It's not properly zoned yet, for starters. But things like stairs help make it look more like a real place than some abstract game arena. It gives character to the environment. I hope UT engine can handle these in 2021 after all the patching

Oh, and simmetry sure makes CTF easier to balance, but it also makes the level less interesting. I did mirrored parts of the flag sites, but tried to break the simmetry indeed.

[TexasGtar]

I liked that it was not a duplicated half. I like that. As long as it is fairly even and does not give advantage to one side, having variances are good I think.
The people helping you above are way more knowledgeable than me about the technical side of things. Good people and yes. they are great at tackling testing, at another level.

I like that you are thinking about how something "fits". Like the stairs. It's important to have a feeling about what should go and what might look out of place. Good quality to have in mapping.
Be creative and if a rule or best practice doesn't fit your needs, then I say go for it. There are no "rules" to mapping but to make what you want and be happy with it.

I sometimes tried to wait to optimize things later and sometimes you get a lot of brushes that are not good brushes that you intend to get to fixing/building better later, it usually didn't get done.
I try to build conservatively as I go so I don't have a lot to clean up later. It can be a pain to go back and remake things and sometimes the engine doesn't like it when you rebuild a brush out of the original order
for one reason or another, creating bsp holes and anomalies like collision issues.

Yeah, once i saw it I figured that was what you wanted as far as testing but I am better at testing other things more down the line.
Not sure how helpful I can be at this stage in development.
I did enjoy my few games and I'll make a few more runs and see if I have any other input for you on layout and gameplay.
Cheers and again, great start!

[sektor2111]

I hope UT engine can handle these in 2021 after all the patching

I would not count on this, map should run with original UT, patches are still unfinished and in testing, not all players have patched their UT yet. All stuff should have mainly original compatibility especially when it's about a MAP.

[adib]

Can you guys see the seams in my skybox? I tested it in Quake, there's no seams between the textures.
I know the "recommended" way to make UT skyboxes, with separate cloud and mountain layers, etc. But a simple box with six seamless textures just doesn't work or am I missing something?

[sektor2111]

I have a few SkyBox resources where I have to resize a bit textures due to that borked margin when texture is saved in some format. That annoying border-line I see in more maps. Either way I did another sort of SkyBox - pyramid type, that type did not include any line showing polygons but only the sky using stock textures... Eh, I'm not that good at design...

[TexasGtar]

I see them. I would suggest making your box X unreal units smaller in all directions and see if the lines can be eliminated.
If your texture is let's say, 256 X 256 , try making your box 254 X 254 X 254 for example until your line can be adjusted away.
Just a hunch it might work? Allow your overages to be at the bottom of your box where it is not viewable.

I don't know if it will work. I'm not really good at skyboxes.

[sektor2111]

Disagree, you'd better leave cubes as they are and rescalle texture at 1.000900 or something bigger for losing that borked line.