Jump to content

pat h

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About pat h

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/29/1992

Recent Profile Visitors

2,175 profile views
  1. new Quake 3/Quake Live FFA map "Hydra" is now in beta: http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=50433&p=981237#p981237
  2. two more shots of my Q3 map Trespass, which is now testable here: http://quake3world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=50967&start=0
  3. new quake 3 / quakelive duel map set in an abandoned factory.
  4. a couple shots from my upcoming tourney map for q3a/quakelive. (teles/bouncers by hipshot)
  5. here's my final as well: Goldleaf.zip
  6. i'm glad the q3a mapping competition introduced me to this forum - it seems like a great community. it's kind of intimidating to post stuff here, though, since you guys all make so much awesome stuff! here's my latest quake 3 project using sock's industrial texture pack.
  7. hey, i am going to do an update within the next couple of weeks, but feel free to include my release candidate in the map pack if i'm holding things up.
  8. i thought about this more and i decided that, while i wouldn't mind if you kept this judging strategy, i would rather the score cards be more flexible. it's the fixed worth of each specific subsection that bothers me. i understand why you want to be specific - it helps standardize things. but the more specific you get, the more you bias the scores, unfortunately. for example, let's say i'm a judge and i want to give an 18/20 to a map for its visuals because it has some of the best lighting/atmosphere i've ever seen. sadly, i can only give the map 5 points for its lighting, and i am forced give the same share of points to textures even though they may not be as important to the visuals in this case. in other words, i don't think the different subsections are going to be of equal worth all the time. like i said, i think it's a good score card and it's not a big deal if you choose to do things this way, but i'd just feel a lot more comfortable with the judges doing what they want with the points in the four main sections (Gamplay - 40, Technical - 20, Presentation - 20, Creativity - 20) and just having the subsections as things to keep in mind while evaluating. it would be interesting to hear what other people think about this.
  9. looks good to me. i like that gameplay is worth the majority. it does seem like a lot of work for the judges though. consider simplifying it if it takes too long to run through each map.
  10. a couple more things: 1. the map could use another armor i think. if you draw a diagonal line through the layout, one half of the map holds the MH and the RA while the other half only has one YA and the Quad. how about putting a second YA by the "11" where the 50 health is now? that way there is something valuable there even when the quad is not around. 2. it's too dark for me and it really affects my map learning process. it's no fun to memorize a layout in the dark. what compiler settings are you using? i think an extra radiosity bounce would actually do the trick quite nicely. one other small thing was i thought the RL would make more sense in the pit below where it currently is now, right in front of the bouncer.
  11. thanks. i'm really glad you liked the gameplay so much. i spent a lot of time trying to get it right before i moved on to the art pass - so much so that i almost risked not finishing on time. but gameplay is king in my mind so that's a great compliment.
  12. thanks for organizing everything, sprony. it was awesome to be a part of this. please do let us know when you and the judges decide on some announcement date for the results. it's too much for me to have to deal with that constant anticipation of checking from day to day
  13. Name: Pat Howard Map: Goldleaf https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3305662/baseq3/pk3s/goldleaf.pk3
  • Create New...