in case any admin wants to update the links, the link to Joe McDonald's article is broken. Not sure if this is a copy someone made or his new link. http://linradiant.intron-trans.hu/docs//Map Design Guide.html
Now, before every time i save i have to check to see if it's still working. Will likely lock it down until release.
@Zombievillan i think you're reading too much into it but either way let him enjoy the hype stage. Anyway, I wanted to elaborate on something I mentioned in a party earlier to articulate my perspective a bit better. Map design is about creating an experience on a level, solving problems with that level and polishing it up to a finished state. When it comes to solving problems, there is the proactive approach and the reactive approach. I think that in the event that the author knows what they want out of a design, 90% of its problems should be solved preemptively while building it. If a section is overpowered or a sightline is too long, those should be easily weeded out while running around the map with a few other people. Of course, there is no way to spot every single problem until it is out there in the wild. But if you have enough eyes on it early on, you should be able to guide it in the right direction, especially when it comes to solving problems. Now if you don't have a clear vision for the map, you are more likely to fall victim to reactive design, or what I will call "the interation cycle". Within this cycle is the phenomena of necessary solutions and "tacked on" bandaid fixes. The former is simply an extension of the map reached by fleshing out the design. It is additive and retains the identity of the map while enhancing it. The latter is also additive; however, it usually takes away from the design because it exists only to solve an issue without adding much to it. I don't like bandaid fixes. I believe that if the author's vision is strong, the map should be "done" when it reaches a playable state. I would prefer to only ever have to tweak sightlines, scaling, spawns and weapon balancing on my maps. If something needs to be redesigned at that point, I believe there was an error in judgement while designing it in the first place, and that might then bring the entire layout into question. If a design ends up being molded strongly after the fact, how many of those are necessary changes, and how many of them are tacked on 'bandaid' fixes? I've seen a lot of maps that have reached a point where the author ended up throwing too many bandaid solutions in order to fix problems. In many ways, these maps have lost their identities and crossed into "overdesign" territory. So while every change was made with the intention of fixing the map for the better, it's possible that in doing so, the essence of the design is lost in the process, thereby making the map less interesting overall. Because when you start doing things that simply fix problems and do not add anything else to the map, they bog down its creative vision. As a counter argument to my position, it was mentioned that, should a solution be reached, whether proactively or reactively, the end result is still the same. I agree with this...at least to an extent. For some designs, I believe that if a drastic change that requires an overhaul or fundamental shift in perspective for the way the design is constructed is necessary, then it is no longer a bandaid fix, but a complete redesign. And therefore, it doesn't make sense to continue to solve a problem for something that is lacking potential. What is potential though? Simply, the ability to grow. Layouts are a not hard to make. In fact they are disposable and malleable like a tub of clay. But a design that adheres strongly to a formula, visual or style of gameplay may hit a ceiling, and the ability to recognize that ceiling and move on from the design is an asset I believe every Forger should have. Then again this is coming from a scrapper who spends months before making their maps playable This tends to operate on a case by case basis, as some maps will have a strong vision throughout and others will start off completely open ended until the kind of gameplay that makes them fun is captured and enhanced through iteration. But I'd like to someday become a good enough designer to get it right the first time.
@A 3 Legged Goat Nah I'm just giving him a hard time. I couldn't resist using schnitzels name in a (kinda) clever way. I'm sure even schnitzel likes it if he reads it.
Phury is up for adoption for anyone that wants a design. I can go over what I want changed in the design, but I've kinda grown bored of it myself. Just started working on a new construct based map. More details to come once Forge PC comes out and I can actually make **** properly
I wouldn't mind doing it. I'd like to put my own spin on it and it'll probably take me awhile since I don't have time. Would that be okay? And I won't be upset if you don't want it being publicized if you don't like the way it plays.
Take it, no problems here. I feel like hit a brick wall with the design and feel a fresher pair of eyes would do the map good.
Probably a bunch of sliders, or a new forge object something similar can be seen in the gamespot forge tutorial
Do people like super long and in depth but still pretty looking map posts, like Legion /Shire. Or ultra short pretty looking posts like wyverns or Loading Zone.