Page 2 of 7

ONS-Rail

Posted: Thu 25. Oct 2012, 21:09
by Pegasus
Wormbo wrote:Personally I'd recommend replacing "essential ladders" with jumppads [...]
Although I'm probably too biased about this map by now (never considered it much more than a linear DM obstacle course masquerading as ONS) to be commenting on what's best for it, this man speaks the truth. In the multi-part Best UT Mapping/Modding Practices guide I intend to write once I've successfully managed to clone myself and split my work load, I'll make sure to include a subsection about the pros and cons of the various methods a mapper can use to move pedestrians around in non-walking fashion :).

Seriously though, ladders are the worst option you can offer your players when they need to get someplace higher, lower or completely elsewhere.

Jumppads are the smoothest and most agreeable manner to do that, both visually (movement is progressive, predictable and natural), resource-wise (no con-hampering channels needed), as well as in terms of fairness (destinations can't be as easily sabotaged/lamed) and keeping the player's skills relevant to the action (players can still move while traveling, thereby having some leeway to avoid oncoming fire). Bots have an easy time getting around by jumppads, but mappers should take note to pair their jumppads with a properly aligned sparkly emitter so that ppl can easily tell which way and how fast they'll be flying.

Slightly worse, but still acceptable to most, is the option of teleporters, only there you start running into the known gameplay caveats of telefragging as well as whatever other surprises may be lurking at the destination (mines, vec campers). On the other hand, teleporting is the only viable method to link two non-euclidean-neighboring locations, so that works to their benefit. Still, 'porters also become somewhat troublesome to higher ping players, particularly when the exit orientation is pointing toward a used 2-way 'porting system. Bots also do okay with teleporters.

Worse yet are lifts that even by themselves (no enemies around) can potentially malfunction because of how they've been custom coded in a map re: their default position (for how to set up lifts to annoy ppl as much as possible look no further than ONS-Hoover_Dam); their operation can be too easily and repeatedly hampered just by shooting on 'em as they move or standing over their return location, so that's gameplay taking a few blows for it right off the bat. Exit level locations are also as easy to camp and boobytrap as with teleporters. Being movers, that means they're net actors that the server has to keep track of, but also that they can only be at one place at a time, therefore introducing the concept of scarcity to the game as opposed to the previous 2 travel methods that are constant in their availability for a continuous stream of passengers; groups of more than 2 teammates can expect to be separated when they have to travel up/down by lift (as often evidenced in StarReach). One redeeming trait lifts sport, on the other hand, is the extra airtime potential they offer to mid-movement jumpers and that's one additional nuance that mappers should keep in mind when designing lift spaces. Bots have been known to block lifts on foot or with vecs, resetting their cycle in mid-ascent and plummeting to their deaths by shooting around and generally not being situationally aware of what's going on when you force 'em to a lift.

Lastly, there's the ladders. Only beginners or sadistic mappers use ladders. Other than the fact that you eventually can get to your destination, there's nothing else that's good about 'em. Aesthetic agreement with a map's overall existing theme is never a justified reason by itself to hinder gameplay around the area by using ladders instead of any of the previous 3 traveling methods. While they're net-resource-neutral, other players viewed using a ladder will appear to move in a jittery fashion as they themselves sacrifice movement control while climbing, thus becoming predictable targets to anyone else. Even if one manages to scale a high ladder without falling to their death for any number of reasons, they still have to hope they aligned themselves just right to fit through whatever unnecessarily narrow slit the mapper created as a ladder exit point (which are also too easy to camp), otherwise it's all been for naught and they'll need to retake the ladder "test" from the bottom. Never. Ever. Use. Ladders.

Oooh, look, I wasn't going to write this, but the clone did it anyway; good boy. One down, a few dozen more to go, I guess...

Re: ONS-Rail

Posted: Sun 13. Jan 2013, 14:35
by Crusha K. Rool
Ok, replaced the most common ladders with jumppads (exception being those ladders to the high sniping posts and those to the canalisation). Bots play the map much smoother now, though they still tend to get stuck in the adjustable doors of the prime nodes, which I can't really avoid.

http://www.mediafire.com/?se1ctoxacfbtt0d

Re: ONS-Rail

Posted: Tue 15. Jan 2013, 20:19
by laboRHEinz
Thank you for working on it again!
Did you also fix the fps-drops? Gave it a quick look and couldn't find a spot offering less than 55fps (Core2Duo 8400 / AMD 6870).
So it's ready to be upped? Anyone?

Re: ONS-Rail

Posted: Wed 16. Jan 2013, 01:33
by Crusha K. Rool
Was never able to reproduce those fps drops in the first place, so I couldn't do much about them.

Re: ONS-Rail

Posted: Fri 18. Jan 2013, 21:42
by laboRHEinz
We had it online. The feedback turned out the same: they still say it's "laggy" (some players even left). Someone should take a deeper look at the fps-performance. Sorry if I make you pro-mappers laugh (I'm not a mapper at all), but ... wouldn't it help a bit if adding some slight fog? Others mentioned proper zoning, anti-portals and lightings. No clue what's that all about, just been quoting.

Aside from the fps problems, most players were cheering for the new tunnels and jumppads!

Re: ONS-Rail

Posted: Fri 18. Jan 2013, 22:05
by Wormbo
As far as I can tell, the middle of the map is entirely open, as far as the network and rendering visibility is concerned. There are neither antiportals nor BSP brushes there (H key in UnrealEd easily tells that), so maybe filling those containers with BSP/APA combinations could help. The BSP can be invisible collision hulls, so neither them nor the AntiPortalActors are required to be entirely hidden by the static meshes.

Re: ONS-Rail

Posted: Sat 2. Feb 2013, 00:51
by Crusha K. Rool
What do you mean by invisible BSP? Transparent texture and then make it float a bit over the ground so it doesn't cause cuts in geometry that would be visible? Use only planes? Or use semisolids (are those actually considered in network culling)?
And would such a tiny piece of BSP here and there actually make a difference, given how players are probably never really going to stay out of sight for 7 seconds anyway?

Interesting stats:
The map has 571 textures consuming a total of 72 MB video memory. With ONS-Urban it's 649 textures with 110 MB.
The map has 157 staticmeshes with a total of 46k triangles and an average of 300 per mesh. ONS-Urban has 227 staticmeshes with a total of 109k triangles and an average of 480 per mesh.

The only difference is that Urban can make better use of culling. :/

Re: ONS-Rail

Posted: Sat 2. Feb 2013, 07:57
by Wormbo
I mean "Invisible Collision Hulls", which are semi-solid brushes with the "Invisible" flag set. The same flag is used for zone portals, IIRC, and basically means the brush is neither rendered nor considered for static lighting. (Unlike a transparent material, which actually needs to be processed.) Semi-solids are not guaranteed to not make any cuts, but they are the least likely brush type to mess up the BSP tree. ;)

Re: ONS-Rail

Posted: Sun 19. Jan 2014, 15:20
by Kentaro
Well, that underground passages are nice designed but i'm dubitative about their utility. Maybe even more for the Udamage, which is almost useless, you don't see anyone, so can't shoot there.

The comeback is really hardcore (always, even with all your edits) and is the major issue of the map.
What do you think of making the 4 middle nodes unshielded?

Currently, when you succeed in pass through the enemy lines, you can only camp and snipe them from behind. If the nodes were unshielded, you could attack the enemy nodes, while your team is fighting/being raped at the usual place.
That would allow to :
  • - cut the enemy spawn for a little time, and permit your team to take one middle node
    - spread the battle over all the middle area
    - give your underground area a real utility
That's true it will allow abusive cut-offs, but have in mind that the middle node is here to help you to take the enemy primaries (currently it's too hardcore, when you try to build it, you take all bio/combos/shrapnels from below).

Re: ONS-Rail

Posted: Thu 18. Dec 2014, 21:12
by Crusha K. Rool
Hey Crusha, it's Cat from CEONSS. I'm really sorry to trouble you but I
never seem to be able to catch you on steam. I just wanted to ask you a
quick question regarding Rail-Beta15. A lot of the players have been asking
for Rail to be put back on the server, which I would like to do, but I
can't while it continues to have lag issues.

I know that you asked the original map creator if it was ok to edit the
map, but I wanted to ask you if you would mind if we edited your v15 and to
try and get rid of the issues which are stopping it from getting on the
sever?

All the best,

Cat
Sure, go ahead. I am curious what is causing the lag in the first place, so I am looking forward to any edits that can clear it up. :)