Woof https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/...tspartin_13493e7c-0b88-492a-916d-aad91bcbc3ab Here's the video - took hours to render I guess *edit* Please take note - I have worked myself into a bit of a frenzy with it, so changing things is almost impossible unless it's just 86ing something altogether
I feel like theres a bit too much to each level. That being said, I can see some really nice sight lines for air/infantry combat, maybe consider putting a neutral phaeton/wasp in the middle and have half the weapon set to counter said vehicle? Going back to the too much going on comment, if you don't want to go the air route, you could flush out the 2 middle levels with more enclosure, cuz as it stands right now the bottom spawners are gonna have a hard time counteracting the EXTREME extreme extreme verticality
I'm turning Kingsbane into an open air catwalk map, like Legion. I find myself going completely blank staring at whatever I've managed to force into existence thus far, all while dreaming of a catwalk filled wonderland. I've come to my senses and will build accordingly.
I see what u mean m8y but vehicles are not in my playbook - just too open to really merit that kind of thing, people will have to go outside to go anywhere and the phaeton will have total control of the map
Maybe he just doesn't give a **** what you think. Convenient for you that you haven't released two maps for him to compare (publicly ridicule). You literally have a whole thread where people are begging you to get roasted, but instead you're beating a dead horse in waywo. What's up with that?
I can have a discussion about my designs, but you haven't asked about them. You've just criticized me for not thinking about theme when designing the layout, and making the claim that they play similar (without playing either of them). You could've asked what the pickup/weapon layout was, how I intend the map to flow, what's the main concept that the map revolves around, lines of sight, anything really. But you chose to talk down to me for some reason.
When did he talk down to you? Making an observation, regardless of whether or not it is one you agree with, is not an insult. He even went out of his way to let you know, and I quote, "I'm not expecting you to start making theme related maps if that doesn't interest you." I too have walked around all of your maps for a decent amount of time, and have played/designed enough of that style to make an inference on how they will play out. All of the lines of sight, door to door encounters, and vertical margins are very similar to that of your other designs. It seems to me that when making a map, you tend to restate the already proven encounters that are common in your style of map, just in a new arrangement. And yes, there is effectively an infinite number of arrangements you could make from these encounters, but what I think goat is getting at (and already exemplified) is why would we not go a step further and create new individual encounters while ALSO creating a new arrangement? We all want to see this community and its designers get better, and I think the only way for that to happen is for the best of us to try new things. The way I see it, if you can break new ground, but don't, you are wasting potential. In the end, nobody here is telling you how to forge. Just understand that it's a little confusing that you seem to avoid anything that you think could potentially hinder design choice (Art, theme, natural terrain), while also creating very geometrically safe play spaces with each new release. Anyways, for the sake of discussion, what is the main concept that the new map you posted a sketch of revolves around?
Which is it? Telling someone they are wasting potential is talking down to them. You saying you aren't telling him to do something doesn't nullify that you are. Xzamples had said he has no interest in entering the industry (like yesterday) and is a proclaimed hobbyist. Yet you treat him like he's 343 putting out similar maps year after year. He does this for fun. This is a Lego simulator, not Level Design 405. If his maps play like ****--thats a reason to stick it to him. That his maps play similarly? I think he gets that and is happy with it. Maybe I'm wrong. They seem to play different enough for his liking and that should be enough. But it's on him to decide whether he wants branch out and innovate, not "we as a community." That you and goat are talking like the arbiters of innovation is talking down like, bro. If he was claiming his map was innovative, that'd be one thing, but all he did was post a ****ing layout.
First of all, I didn't make any comments before the last one. I was defending goat, because there were no insults thrown or put downs in any of the posts they traded. So please, don't loop me in with your off-base general statements about "our" intentions to tell others what to do. I was simply trying to clarify goats point of view, and thought I could do so because it is one that I happen to agree with. Goat still hasn't replied, so I could be wrong on a few points about what I thought he was getting at, but he certainly didn't talk down to anyone. Second of all, my statements were astoundingly subjective. You can take them however you like, but my intentions were to clarify goats opinion, because I share the same opinion. I look at someone who is a capable designer make the same style of map multiple times, and see wasted potential. This isn't an insult by any standards, it is simply my perspective on the matter of which I haven't given my two cents until the last post. Third of all, you've managed to completely miss goats entire argument. This discussion started with the idea that theme can hold back design choice, and that a lack thereof gives free reign to the designer, because you aren't limited by what thematically makes sense. Goat (and I) disagreed with that Idea, which is how the original discussion started between them. Here, I think this quote sums up goats argument nicely. "If you truly have free reign, then why are the majority of your maps indoor rooms? From the handful of maps I've seen from you, the freedom to add a path that "doesn't make thematic sense" hasn't really afforded you the ability to branch out of a set formula."
If I want to have a pointless argument, I'll get in a party with Career. That's our special bond, and I'm not going to share it with you guys. This is the WAYWO. Putting the layout down on graph is part of my process. It's just as valid as pictures/sketchups.
You're welcome to share your thought process. I don't normally ask why the author did something though unless I don't understand it. No I haven't, or at least it wasn't my intention if that was your impression. I simply meant to agree with @MartianMallCop about not liking that style of map because I think they are a meaningless amalgamation of paths. That is my opinion, and it was one I was discussing very recently as a potential podcast topic. I then went on to say that this could at least lead to a variety of designs not hindered by themes, but that wasn't what I was seeing from you If you're still playing your maps to figure out how they play, then you aren't a good designer, and I will happily let you know that. This style of map is 7 years old as far as Forge goes. I think i know how to look at a tried and true design and say "I'm going to shoot a player here, kill him, and he'll spawn there, and then I'll move here and shoot him here, and if he moves that way, I'll go here." I've played enough Halo and other shooters to know that much, and I know you have too. I haven't crticized any of them for playing badly (although you have asked me to roast one of them - I don't remember which at the moment - should I get a chance to play on it). All I've mentioned to you is that your designs are very similar, and I find your stance on level design pretentious in the face of that fact. I don't think it's unfair for me to criticize similarity of your design that you chose to share in WAYWO, but you're getting defensive about it because you're stubbornly attached to your preferences. Remember when you told me my map had too much terrain and it was visually repetitive? I never made that mistake in Forge again because I can't get terrain to look distinct enough in this game. Weapon layout is irrelevant. Without teleporters, the 3 maps I've seen you post in WAYWO are all extremely similar designs with marginally different sightlines and play space. You have a few rooms with paths attached to the exterior walls, sightlines across the halfway or thirdway points - either through doors or windows - and bottom routes towards the middle to flank or flush players out. Again, you've posted full designs compared to others, which is why I chose to address them. I'm not attacking you and I don't have any hidden intentions. But I'll be honest, I am put off when I read your "strictly gameplay-oriented" preferences and then see you post 4 indoor rooms over and over. I think it looks vain because your map preferences should be more flexible than you are making them out to be.
Note to self: Whenever someone starts making sense, accuse them of attacking me. Now I can't be wrong!... sigh All I know is that a Chunk liked my post, which means it was reasonable
is there a lighting technique that would smooth out the shading of pieces at their join points, so that it does not shade the two piece differently and does not introduce a thick gradient line?
I'm not oblivious to the fact that you have been attacked here previously, and we too have had heated discussions before, where I became frustrated that you were deflecting discussion. But since then, and in this instance especially, I chose to approach you from what i felt was a rational perspective. If you think me criticizing your designs and challenging your design preferences is an attack, then it's no wonder you haven't grown as a designer. That's a recipe for stagnation, and I say that to everyone in the thread. I'm not looking to be impressed by anyone here and i'm not asking anyone to change their preferences or build to mine. But if you post a design on a site built on peer interaction, expect your peers to share their thoughts, whether you solicit for them or not. I think your preferences are reasonable and I think your skill as a designer should allow you to build progressive maps, but your narrow mindset is the reason you continue to regurgitate your successful designs and perceive any analysis of that fact as an afront towards you. @SoloXIII, @Blaze and @Dweeb have similar prefences and a more varied body of work because they have a wider design lens, and are consequently less offended when someone gives them feedback.
Thinking of designing a map that has two concentric and interlocking donuts that never touch each other floating in space. I'll call it Waywo