Posts by crowbAr

you could start with the real life location, then modify it and keep iterating until it has good gameplay. Recreating a real location 100% is impossible anyway.

only because A is behind B doesnt mean there is no reason to go there. It depends on how you design the level, there should be opportunities to maybe fake B and then push around the map to A, then maybe even change your mind again and surround B or go to A. To make this work you need to work with different heights I think. Also if you go for this Layout, B should be hard to hold so the CTs might commit to much defense there, so Ts can abuse that and go around to A instead. To make that work you have to be really good though. I would look a de_nuke for some inspiration.

How about this (quick sketch from me):

it would be nice if the reddit playtesting thing would actually tell you why your map doesn`t get picked for the next playtest. I don`t have 4000 units long roads. I have no idea why my map wasn`t chosen. But doesn`t matter, I will apply for the other playtesting thing Vaya posted.

looks amazing. I like the red door because it gives the map a bit more color, maybe you could add more stuff like that? Of course you shouldn't overdo it, just some small nuances

Haven't tested the map yet, but the map overview already looks interesting and different.

edit: oh I didn't notice the small trashcans and the blue flag and stuff like that. So you already have some color nuances, maybe a bit more on the houses and the roofs maybe

ohhhhhhhhhhhhh nice. I will check that out! Thanks.

I don`t know where to put this, so I will just put it here: you promoted this contest with playtesting support, which was the only reason I was excited to participate in this contest. The playtesting page says "first come first serve", yeah nice, but at the same time there is an approval stage anyway. I can understand that you don`t want to playtest 500 orange-/greybox maps, but I applied my map for playtesting which already is more advanced than that stage. Besides playtesting in the orange-/greybox stage makes more sense in my opinion. If you playtest only finished maps then whats the point? Those are already playtested, they have a big lead in this contest already, you make the rich people richer.

Now after this little rant I don`t know if I want to continue to work on my map, because I have no idea if it will work or not, and in a contest of this caliber I HAVE to know if the map works, otherwise I am wasting my time (yeah yeah learning by doing, learning from mistakes, experience blabla).

If my map suddenly DOES get accepted for playtesting it will be an awkward situation I think after this rant, sounds like I am a mad little kid, so I just say I don`t want it anymore and will (maybe) abandon my map, not that it will have any impact, but I just hope you care about the contest participants... At the moment the contest just feels like a big attention magnet to get some attention on the biggest, best maps and this website and get the best map possible by refining and iterating over the already established maps (which makes sense for the game's and developer's sake and reputation of this website)

map updated.

- made mid more tight- moved the big pillar at mid- moved T spawn further back- added another route from T spawn to A- changed lighting

The green lines show where T and CT meet first, very rough picture.

Is it okay if I make a new post when I update the map? Or do you consider it as a cheap way to bump my thread :)?

I can post my reference photos. They are actually screenshots from Wolfenstein The Old Blood, now everyone will probably say "wtf man are you stupid?". Also the map has no detail yet, because I want it playtested first. I thought crates are okay, because they are also in other maps and official maps?

I don't know what "bot_show_battlefront 1" is, but it sounds interesting and I will try it out. Also I could give some info on timings, but so far I just have rough numbers in my head. And yes the map is really small compared to official maps, and I wasn't actually going for that first, but now I think I will stick with it because even at this stage the map is a insane amount of work I didn`t expect (this is not my first map). The map "seaside" proved that small maps can work :).

I'm not sure if "it looks like a quake map" is negative or neutral, but I guess it's kinda negative? (at least to succeed in this contest)

Oh and one last thing: You judge the consistency of the theme only by 3 props? I don't see how that is relevant to the whole theme of the map AND I don't think that they break the consistency, but don't get me wrong, I'm not an expert. I'd just appreciate a bit more detailed feedback on that (I appreciate your feedback anyway!!!)

And because my comment still might sound a bit too ungrateful I just want to repeat: Thanks for trying my map

map updated! (Reveal the spoiler tab to see more screenshots)

I dont know. But it would surprise me because func_detail doesnt affect visleafs at all do they? And I checked the portal file. In the past I heard problems about T-junctions or something which has something to do with func_details and when having too many of them, could it be something about that maybe?

deleting the small decoration stuff fixed it. Making everything to one func_detail did nothing. Im not a fan of this solution

maybe this helps though to find what the problem is!

just checked it, nothing special with it

I have no yellow warnings except that water_lod control or something is missing (I know what that is) and that a texture has no surfaceprop something or so. I dont think these relate to anything.

I tried the compile checker on Interlopers but I got nothing.

btw thanks for trying to help me guys this bug is getting really annoying. Im ill, when I recover I will try out more things.

Alt+P shows nothing related to this problem.

I split the white brush vertically and this happenend:

Edit: I changed the brush with the white texture to world brush and the problem is still there, so the problem is not func_detail?

it has the normal amount of vertices

edit: oh do you mean because there are so many small func_detal, each with their own vertices, that there are too many of them for one face ?

yeah I remade it multiple times. I will check the compile log

almost everything you see there is func_detail except parts of the bridge

while we are at it: is it better to have many single func_details or tie many things into one func_detail? I think there is no difference right?

Hi,

Im currently working on a map for the MapCore mapping contest and I encountered an error I never saw before. Here is a screenshot:

And how it is supposed to look like:

I use tons of func_detail in my maps, because I dont know how to make props myself (and so far I didnt need to), but sometimes I encountered problems when having too many func_details, this might be one of them.

I appreciate all help.

I will now keep updating this thread like a diary. First version of my map is out.

I also think its a bit unfair, but leaving the contest completely is also unfair for you I think.

But I have an off-topic question you dont have to answer: Did Valve just contact you and told you that your map was a potential candidate for an Operation but that it didnt meet their requirements or whatever OR did you somehow contact Valve and dunno asked them about it XD? I'm just curious about this