Is Interlocking Necessary Where It's Not Needed?

Interlocking is very necessary. There is nothing more annoying than being in a heated battle and throwing what would be a battle changing grenade only to see it slip through the cracks and not damage your opponent at all. Honestly every piece should be interlocked so that the number of cracks is minimal. If it's an aesthetic choice for interlocking then it's not required, but anything that affects gameplay should be properly interlocked.

 

I could write a lengthy post about why interlocking is absolutely necessary, but instead I'll keep it short:

"YES" TO INTERLOCKING!!!

Gameplay isn't > than aesthetics when there are a ton of inconsistent bumps and loss of grenades. I don't care how fantastic the gameplay is, I want to see some more interlocking. I'm serious.

 

While I'm big on the "needs moar interlox" idea, I think that there are defiantly occasions where it isn't necessary. Roofs, for one are normally not necessary to be interlocked, unless it's a high traffic area with lots of grenades banked off of it. Some maps can get frame rate problems with large amounts of merged Fence Objects, like on Foundry. Maps defiantly look better with interlocking and in most occasions, play better, but it's not 100% necessary. There are good maps with and without it, but I recommend to always try your best at interlocking everything with braces, or at least everything that'll effect gameplay unless it's somewhat out of sight.

 

So your saying that you'd rather have good looks over good gameplay? What kind of belief is THAT. There's a reason why gameplay is called gameplay. It just happens to tell you how well a game plays.

 

Definition: Interlocking and merging are techniques allowing you to overlap geometry.

Fact: Interlocking doesn't have a effect on how bumpy a surface is, how flush or how large a gap between two surfaces can effect how bumpy a surface is.

Fact: Frag and plasma grenades can fall through cracks in geometry.



For all I know, this leaves two reasons to interlock and merge objects:

• To place an object where desired.
• To remove spaces for grenades to fall through.

Considering that, my opinion is that interlocking and merging are simply techniques, they are not necessary, but can definatly aid a map maker.

 

Chill, chill. What he's saying is that he doesn't care how well the map plays. If there are bumps and holes they need to be patched. Interlocking doesn't improve the looks of sandbox maps hardly at all, interlocking does prevent grenade loss.

 

This thread is absolutely full of what I would say are the key misconceptions about interlocking.

First off, the wording of your title says it all really. "Necessary" and "Needed" are synonyms, they mean exactly the same thing. It's basically like saying 'is interlocking needed when it's not needed?'. And this is one of the key discrepancies in these arguments, one being the obvious flaw in logic, and the other being that interlocking is never, ever, ever necessary. Maps without interlocking will still load, the players will still spawn, and they'll still be able to move around, thus it isn't needed in the strictest sense. What the discussion should really be is about which situations warrant interlocking as a trade off between time/effort spent and benefit gained.

And this is where the whole gameplay > aesthetics argument comes in. This is a simple point indeed, and one I agree with (on anything other than an aesthetic map I don't see how anyone could logically justify disagreeing), it is in fact much more simple than people in here seem to realise.

This is, by it's very nature, gameplay and not aesthetics, thus putting it on the more important level thanks to good old '>'. This is a central point, in that many people fail to realise that it's not as cut and dry as 'needed' or not, it's a balance of decision that is logically down to the Forger. When Forging a map, you basically have to weigh up every possible interlock/merge and ask: how will interlocking/merging help the gameplay of the map here? Even if it's a tiny point, such as nades possibly being lost, then you can argue that it was of benefit, and thus worth time. Even if it serves literally no purpose in gameplay terms, you are of course free to interlock as you wish, but if you think it improves your map in any playable sense then you are sorely mistaken, I see this mistake made most prominently with regards to Features and those who expect one based on arguably pointless interlocks/merges.

Whilst you are of course entitled to your opinion, and you either enjoy or a map or you don't, it's hardly something you choose, I have to disagree strongly. I think the single most important thing to remember when Forging a map is not to look at it with a Forger's eye. Maps are meant to be played, not flown around as a monitor and inspected, thus the only opinion that really matters when judging a map is that of someone who looks at Halo and its maps from a player's perspective. I find that all to often, people look at their own maps, as well as those of others, with a Forger's eye, focusing more on how difficult various things were to do rather than whether they actually serve any point.

I'll admit that aesthetics and immersion are an aspect of maps, atmosphere can really help a map, but interlocking doesn't necessarily = atmosphere, in fact it's my opinion that on Sandbox, the rough and ready aesthetic actually works much better if you don't go around interlocking every little thing in to all its neighbours.

Please people, separate need from want, look at maps with a player's eye instead of a Forger's one (hard as this can be sometimes, but just find a friend who doesn't Forge and ask their opinion), and realise the point of a map is to be played, not to be oh'd and ah'd at by fellow Forgers. This may feel good, compliments from one craftsmen to another are great, but a true craftsman in Forge knows that Design > everything, without question, and I'd rather have a slap on the back based on a really nice design than a really difficult merge which isn't even in the playable space.

 

Just do it. Get off your lazy ass and interlock it instead of debating whether or not it's really worth your time. Interlocking certainly doesn't make it look worse.

 

This is hardly a helpful comment, it fails to put forward any points in support of your assertion (for it is nothing more), and even attempts to ridicule those who disagree with you as 'lazy'. You've got eyes, you've got a brain, and you've got hands, all 3 of which are magical tools which enable the miracle of online discussion. Utilise them.

And actually interlocking can make it look worse, and in fact a poor interlock can even make a map play worse. I've seen many maps with interlocked boxes where they could have just been placed up against one another, and the person has interlocked them, actually making one box slightly out of line with another, twisting the dimensions of what should have been a perfectly aligned structure.

I would never tell people that they shouldn't interlock, that they should avoid it somehow, just see it for what it is, and don't expect credit for it where none is due. If you're going to interlock, do it properly and don't let it compromise design/alignment etc. And I think the main problem with this attitude is exactly how it propagates itself. It's this kind of assumption that interlocking is always the better option which causes people to instinctively dismiss a map that doesn't use interlocking in every situation that it could have, which is exactly the kind of attitude that is bring FH down.

 

No it isn't, and it's a waste of time that could be devoted to discovering how your map actually plays. Get your floors done so you don't lose any grenades (protip: there will always be bumps, but your reticule won't register the majority of them. It's only a bump where your reticule bounces upwards/jump animation that would require a fix), and adjust your wall spacing accordingly. The cool thing about Sandbox is that it's much easier to create a "theme" without all the ridiculous interlocking that one had to do on Foundry. That lead to people using it as a gimmick to sell their map rather than focusing on creating a competitive design. Sandbox eliminates this to a certain degree, thus negating the much despised "needs moar interlox" comments.

TL;DR version: only do it where necessary.

 

I completely agree with squid, I don't believe that everything has to be interlocked, where to the point that the game lags up completely, I only do it when needed, and that is all i'll ever do.

 

As others have said before me, focus on the gameplay first. If you don't need to interlock, don't waste your time trying to get a perfect alignment. Sandbox has much more map-making scenery than Foundry before it, so try to be resourceful, using items on the original map and using items that would otherwise be neglected on your map (e.g. the small stone blocks). But there will always be a place and time for interlocking, so don't count it out if you want it to have a certain aesthetic or specialized geometry.

 

Well, I have a habit of interlocking or gemoerging every single object that I place on the map. I don't really know or care if it is neccesary, I just prefer it, so I put it upon myself to make sure that my maps show my skill in forging. However there is a downside to this as Squidhands mentioned. After practicing in forge for a while I decided to make a map, and after about 40 hours of forging, thinking of ideas, and overloading the map with interlocking and geomerging, Unholy Relic was born. However, some of you may not know the complete FAIL that the map was gameplay wise. I got too excited over the way the map looked and completely neglected gameplay. The truth is, there is no answer, it's all about personal preference.

 

*Sigh* Ok, ok, sorry. Here it goes.

Interlocking for a LOOOOOOONG time has been debated as a curse or a gift from the heavens. On one side, people argue that interlocking has just rendered any map that doesn't utilize it to a certain extent, as obsolete or a compilation of "laziness". This is because interlocking allows any crack, jagged edges, or ugly piles of objects to be smoothed over like the butter on corn. Interlocking, like butter, seems to make everything taste better.

However, sometimes interlocking isn't "necessary". Sometimes the corn is being used for a different purpose, like chicken feed. Maybe flickering is more likely to occur with interlocking, on a spot that really doesn't have a bump that needs to be fixed. Maybe interlocking even looks BAD in some cases. Maybe the corn is meant for decoration and the butter would just leave stains all over the door. For example, a wall that was meant to look caved in, doesn't look quite right with it fused into another wall, or the floor and looks more like a mistake.

Both arguments are perfectly plausible. But, maybe there isn't an argument at all. Corn meant to be eaten at the fair should be buttered. Corn meant to be fed to animals doesn't need to be. And corn used for decoration just plain shouldn't be. The only time when it becomes an argument is when somebody feels that the corn tastes better to them without the butter, or the butter is on the top shelf of the cupboard so they feel like bringing a chair over to get it is too much of a hassle. I say, if that's the case, take into consideration that most of America enjoys butter on their corn, and that maybe bringing the chair over isn't all that big of a deal.

 

it's neccisary in some places in some levels. if a building calls for a wierd shape, then you should interlock it.

 

That's actually a rather nicely poetic metaphor, much as it is a bit longwinded in parts and not something I can really identify with at all, much to my friends' and family's dismay, I've never been much of a butter fan .

But I see what you're saying, and I do agree that actually if there is a benefit, however small, then it's worth putting the time in if you have it. Even if it is purely for aesthetic purposes, then you still might as well if you have time to kill. Just remember to distinguish how much time was put in from what was gained, and expect or hope for positive feedback on the basis of the latter, not the former.

But what really, really irks me is that this is pretty much the single debate that comes up in Forging discussion with any frequency. Those who put forward good points on differentiating degrees of benefit with interlocks/merges in different situations are generally heeded on this point, but their more central argument goes unnoticed:

Sure interlocking doesn't hurt if done right, and can have positive effects ranging from minute to quite noticable, but why is it all people think about? The very fact that people don't bring up debates on aspects such as design and refined spawning systems is telling of how much these factors are overlooked, when they are much more important than interlocking to making a map great. Just think about the time spent interlocking to a tee on many maps, add it all up, and instead use this time before you even start the map properly, spend this time designing. Sure there's generally not a time limit on a Forge project, but that's exactly it. You're not forced to choose one out of the three (design, geometry techniques to realise this design, then spawning/weapons to bring it to life), and yet people do, and moreover they choose to focus on the one which matters the least in greater terms.

I don't think it a massively conscious decision to choose focus on interlocking as opposed to dedication to design/planning/essential mechanics like spawning, but it is present amongst a very large number, and its self sustaining. If someone turns up at FH and only receives comments on whether they're interlocking is good/bad (btw, what these actually mean is technically skilled/not technically skilled, which is far from the same thing as good/bad in larger terms), then they get the impression that these are the ideals of Forge. Why shoot ourselves in the foot like this, when we can push Forge so much further and use it to fully explore the beautifully refined game mechanic that is Halo 3?

So yeah, interlock away, never feel that you should specifically avoid it, just remember that it's a tool which doesn't deserve critiquing in independent terms, and always consider if your time could be better spent with the other 2, more important Forging aspects, or indeed whether these factors are even being given enough of a look in in the first place. "You might as well" is not the attitude I take issue with, in fact it's one I generally employ myself, I just don't expect my map to be vastly better because of it, I just hate losing nades, even a slight chance . "You should wherever possible or your map will be worse", that is the attitude I take issue with, and much as you seem to be proposing the former rather than the latter, I'm guessing you'll agree that all too many on FH aren't on the same page and push interlocking way beyond its own merits. If this wasn't the case, FH would be more productive, especially the map forums and comments, and the maps produced would show more of a focus on what really matters, design and essential mechanic, benefitting as a result.

 

I don't think he was saying that. I think the ">" was a typo and should of been "<." The rest of his post backs this up, and it was pretty obvious to me.

However my two cents is this. Interlocking is important. I not only want my map to play well, but also look professional. It has my name on it after all. Sure bungie may say don't do it, buy you don't see them shipping maps with cracks or unintentionaly uneven floors.

You will most likely will never get a map like this in matchmaking. But I don't care for that honor. And since that is the case, it would be rare to get a bunch of people in a custom game that would break the frame rate on a map. 8 players will almost always work. And if it doesn't, load up a default map, and 9 times out of 10 your party will have a problem on that one too due to lag.

 

In a way, it answers itself. Interlocking is never really needed, but used in almost every map. Why? Simple it makes the map more appealing to the eye. Everybody will mindlessly battle that Gameplay > Aesthetics. This is simply not true. Yes the main reason to build a map is for gameplay, but not everyone will want to keep playing if the game looks horrendous. It sounds shallow in the map making world but its true. I don't want any of you to find something I said in this post, Quote it, and make it sound stupid. I'm meerly stating my opinion on maps. I can be somewhat of a hppocrite though, because I do download some maps that I know in my head won't get featured, or they aren't good looking, but not all the time.

So to answer the question, Interlocking is not needed in most ways, but I still use it in every single one of my maps. It does improve gameplay a little, to stop frag's from leaving the map/ room.

I believe Gameplay = Aesthetics in some cases.