Topic: Exquisite Fortress (Read 2187 times)

Zaratustra · « **on:** March 29, 2009, 06:26:51 PM »

This will be like an Exquisite Corpse (like the Knorpse before it) except each person makes a part of a TF map. I haven't decided yet if it'll be sequential or if everyone will be doing it at the same time.

Up to eight people can be in on this. Some familiarity with Hammer or desire to learn it would be good.

If you want to be in the game state so in bold letters.

People playing:

1. Zaratustra
2. Newbie
3. Brentai

Mongrel · « **Reply #1 on:** March 29, 2009, 06:40:20 PM »

CP Defense and Payload.

Of all the 'bland' options, Payload has repeatedly proved itself to be the most fun. Perhaps because progress manifests itself in such a tangible way.

CP Defense can be a hell of a lot of fun provided the map is well-designed. The fact that CP Defense maps are the least linear map style means games often vary wildly with many many different gameplay options. Yes, many of the more linear maps include multiple attack vectors, but CP Defense maps are multi-vectored by their very concept and the number of paths can be expotentially larger.

Third option: Creative mission-based maps, that use no one map style. A mix-and-match hodgepodge that tells a story and keeps things interesting.

CP Traditional is okay, but seems more like a gladiator match than a tactical combat exercise. Too often it degenerates in to gimmickery. Flag capping tends to be bland, and at worst is endless 2Fort. Though 1Fort was nice. Arena is more like a preview, practice area, or subgenre than anything else. Territorial control is rather vague and sounds like CP Traditional-by-any-other-name.

EDIT:

Oh.

Derf.

I just realized you're actually making a new map. I thought this was another pointless thread where everyone just discussed their opinions.

Smiler · « **Reply #2 on:** March 29, 2009, 06:42:54 PM »

3 cart payload map.

Detonator · « **Reply #3 on:** March 29, 2009, 06:47:48 PM »

How would this even work with a multiplayer game? I guess if the goal is to make the most horrendous map to play, then yeah, it's a good idea.

Mongrel · « **Reply #4 on:** March 29, 2009, 06:50:10 PM »

Hm.

Maybe it would be better if you actually subdivided responsibilities in a useful way. Like some folks design the map, others build it to the specs, others decided gameplay/theme/objectives.

etc. etc.

Bongo Bill · « **Reply #5 on:** March 29, 2009, 06:55:16 PM »

Three-stage CP defense map, with three teams each working on one stage?

Brentai · « **Reply #6 on:** March 29, 2009, 06:57:09 PM »

I think the idea here is to make an entertainingly varied map rather than a really playable one.

Mongrel · « **Reply #7 on:** March 29, 2009, 07:10:38 PM »

Quote from: Bongo Bill on March 29, 2009, 06:55:16 PM

Three-stage CP defense map, with three teams each working on one stage?

There's a seed of an interesting idea here. Imagine some kind of map with a 9 player minimum, where each team is forcibly subdivided into three subteams, each with dedicated areas. Victory in any two areas means advancement. You could make the teams imbalanced if you wish, and transfer between the areas should not be completely impossible - merely difficult and time-consuming (i.e. the practice should be discouraging enough that only teams with a very strong incentive to overcome it will do so). Also, no area is allowed to be unmanned.

Zaratustra · « **Reply #8 on:** March 29, 2009, 07:53:18 PM »

Yes by all means let's make a map we won't have enough people to play at. Because it worked so well with pl_double.

jsnlxndrlv · « **Reply #9 on:** March 29, 2009, 08:08:48 PM »

Sure, I can brush up on Hammer. In. Really curious how you're going to make this kind of design work, but I'm sure you'll find a way.

Fredward · « **Reply #10 on:** March 29, 2009, 08:44:26 PM »

Considering there's only one TC map that I can think of, and a pretty underwhelming example at that (lolhydro), I'll throw my vote in for that.

yyler · « **Reply #11 on:** March 30, 2009, 03:52:41 AM »

CP Traditional and CTF prolly wouldn't work too well because they have to be symmetrical, so we'd have one really huge map or we'd be using small areas. Maybe that is okay?

Payload would be tricky for the tracks I think?

TC would probably be best since it is literally a bunch of slightly disconnected areas mashed together. I think either this or CP defense.

I'm not going to say I am in on this yet, because there is still a lot I have to learn about Hammer. But I could probably do this.

Zaratustra · « **Reply #12 on:** March 30, 2009, 01:46:51 PM »

Yeah, I'm not seeing much excitement about this.

Niku · « **Reply #13 on:** March 30, 2009, 02:04:28 PM »

that could be because it is not a great idea.

Doom · « **Reply #14 on:** March 30, 2009, 02:20:40 PM »

would be better with a genuine drive by more people to experiment in map making and the assurance that someone will come along at the end and hammer it into a working product

as opposed to our community dorf forts where we let the newbies come in on year seven

Kazz · « **Reply #15 on:** March 30, 2009, 02:21:58 PM »

try as i might, i could not get the lava moat to work

Doom · « **Reply #16 on:** March 30, 2009, 02:25:14 PM »

The act of toiling is dwarven enough

Mongrel · « **Reply #17 on:** March 30, 2009, 02:32:30 PM »

Quote from: Yyler on March 30, 2009, 03:52:41 AM

CP Traditional and CTF prolly wouldn't work too well because they have to be symmetrical

I'm sorry, but I just hate this misconception. It's a hell of a lot EASIER to make them symmetrical, but nowhere is it written that this is an absolute necessity.

Brentai · « **Reply #18 on:** March 30, 2009, 04:13:18 PM »

I didn't want to say "in" before I was sure I could wedge "Learn 3D level design" somewhere into my schedule, but if it fucking helps the cart move forward, then "in".

News:

Poll

What should be the main game mode?

Author Topic: Exquisite Fortress (Read 2187 times)