Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scale Changes and Level Design

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    [OFFICIAL] Scale Changes and Level Design

    As a heads up for people in anticipation of the build coming soon(tw);

    Crouch/Slide now needs 150 units of clearance (it's technically a bit less but that number is pretty clean overall and works nicely as a standard). ASDF may actually ship broken in that regard because it was missed initially and probably not worth holding up the build for yet again.

    For the time being (and until further testing reveals issues) that is the only thing we've really had to account for so far. Previously we'd try to account for allowing enough clearance for wall dodging etc in all major doorways etc but are shifting that philosophy back towards more player responsibility instead. This will really only affect moderate/advanced players anyhow and in that case is considered part of the skill of learning how to navigate a particular environment.


    Once the build is out please feel free to use this thread for scale related discussion. Map specific issues should go in the bug section and will be most appreciated.

    #2
    Thanks for a head's up, Clawfist.
    Can't say in the name of others, but I personally am a bit anxious of the scale changes. I see loads of risk related to it, but I try to remain calm. Well, can't judge what wasn't seen and tried, right?

    One concern though - I hope that aforementioned "more player responsibility" will not serve as an excuse for leaving stuff broken. And I don't even suggest that you guys may use such excuse. I am more worried about fellow community mappers. It would be bad for feedback and overall communication if mappers start to cover up scale issues on their levels by saying that's a "part of the skill". I agree with the statement, hard not to, but once it's written, it hopefully will not get overly abused. I mean, bashing one's head with a ceiling on a too cramped map is not a part of the skill. I am rambling around that matter, because I've seen some cool creative folks getting unnecesarily nervous when a word "skill" comes into play.
    Last edited by insomnaut; 01-30-2016, 07:45 PM.
    @insomnaut aka charon / DM-Coma / ArmorWare

    Comment


      #3
      From what I've seen the scale change doesn't pose a massive issue for the current map set. Since most of the stock maps haven't received (major) changes I'm not overly worried (IIRC only Deck got major changes. I may be wrong). As Clawfist pointed out the major thing to note is the change in crouch height as it's the only 'you can no longer move in this space change'. It is however worth taking a look at any tight spots in maps; Salt for example may need a general scale up to feel playable again since it felt so tight before.

      The mindset behind player responsibility is taking the toolkit players have and limiting what they have available at any one time; which refocuses skill away from mechanical ability, and onto strategy. Maximizing movement options at all times makes risk/reward gameplay harder to design in than it should be, for example. At the end of the day Epic have adjusted their philosophy, they're not forcing said philosophy onto community developers. That said it's worth taking note and seeing how that effects your maps.

      It's a school of thought thing; some people aren't going to like it. But it should however encourage slightly slower, more tactical gameplay.
      Last edited by NATO_chrisjm; 01-30-2016, 08:30 PM.

      Comment


        #4
        On top of the points raised, just give it some time.

        Play the stock maps that Epic feel are good with the new player scale. Get used to it.

        Play your own maps, how do they compare? Do you need to open up some sight-lines? Need to adjust some cover height based on the new crouch value? Are you being blocked by anything you weren't previously?

        Do not scale the whole map up by 15% to compensate.

        Do not throw out your map and start from scratch. From what we know and have heard, this will not be necessary.

        DM-Kosko (A04) | DM-Backspace (Released!) | DM-Veracity (A01)| DM-Smog (A01) | DM-Conflux (A02)

        Comment


          #5
          @insomnaut: It means not being able to perform every movement option successfully in every spot of the map can be ok. If something is designed to be tight as a means of say making it a risker spot to traverse that's fine. That means for existing spaces if we discover areas that are now newly limited we shall have to evaluate if it serves a good purpose or is unnecessarily frustrating and should be tweaked to accommodate the new scale changes. 98% of these cases will probably be related to wall dodging as that's really the most "offensive" move when it comes to containing scale vertically.

          So yeah, definitely not an excuse for broken things, just a slightly different philosophy.

          @NATO/Scinbed: Spot on!


          Generally speaking with regards to community maps - One of the many side effects of UTs history being so "diverse" is that there naturally are some huge deviations when it comes to people's perception of what makes a place tight and cramped vs just right vs way too open etc. Combine that with most everybody using wildly different language when it comes to describing these sort of differences as positive vs negative and why that is and you end up all over the place when it comes to how to scale your map relatively speaking. That being said we will continue to iterate on what we think works well for the game as a whole and try to set a standard in doing so with our content. I believe there is room for tight maps, open maps, and most of all a mix of both etc as long as they serve a proper purpose. To me UT is at it's best when that mix is employed to leverage strengths and weaknesses of weapons and movement in general and doesn't bias too heavily towards an extreme of either of the two.

          Comment


            #6
            Personally am looking forward to this new build. I have noticed that player models are visually small relative to their environment. Perhaps this scale increase will improve things slightly. I made my thoughts pretty clear on the U-Tea Forecast. I'm only concerned about the change, not scared. Better way to put it would be that I'm aware of possible implications and am ready to deal with them. I'm sure any necessary modifications to maps will be swift and easy.

            I really only recommend upscaling a complete or near complete map as a last resort option. You shouldn't be upscaling a work in progress map as that will hinder its development. Early prototype maps are easy enough to tweak using geometry edit mode to compensate for any scale changes. Maps like Outpost23, which are already very tight feeling, might benefit from a scale increase (in fact I *highly* recommend testing out a 3-5% scale increase at some point using Rattlesnake's map scaler) I tested it, and it made a very noticeable improvement in my opinion.

            Completely off topic: I'm really looking forward to having LOD transition fade in this new build! That will do wonders for maps with any visual popping caused by lod changes.
            Last edited by Neilz0r; 01-31-2016, 01:34 AM.
            Contact me: (Steam: Neillithan) (E-mail: neilvmoore@gmail.com)

            Comment


              #7
              I'm really looking forward to the new build. I don't think the player scale changes will cause many problems with maps. The ones they do cause will probably mostly be with crouch and easy to fix by making the opening a little higher... . I'm more concerned about the lighting, especially after seeing those screenshots of the lighting artifacts on Pistola.

              Originally posted by CaptainMigraine View Post
              Maps like Outpost23, which are already very tight feeling, might benefit from a scale increase (in fact I *highly* recommend testing out a 3-5% scale increase at some point using Rattlesnake's map scaler) I tested it, and it made a very noticeable improvement in my opinion.
              I agree, I've tested Outpost scaled up by 5% and I thought it played much better too.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by MoxNix View Post
                I'm really looking forward to the new build. I don't think the player scale changes will cause many problems with maps. The ones they do cause will probably mostly be with crouch and easy to fix by making the opening a little higher... . I'm more concerned about the lighting, especially after seeing those screenshots of the lighting artifacts on Pistola.
                What did I miss?

                Comment


                  #9
                  https://unrealtournament.atlassian.net/browse/UT-2681

                  It seems to be mostly light penetration and foliage shadowing. The shadowing is probably a material / mesh level thing so it should be fixed by the time the build comes out.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Oh ****. This could take a while though. And I see we have 2 blockers.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by CaptainMigraine
                      Completely off topic: I'm really looking forward to having LOD transition fade in this new build! That will do wonders for maps with any visual popping caused by lod changes.
                      Ha! That's great news!
                      WIP - Maps (UT - Build 0.1.12.1): https://goo.gl/v8ze8Y
                      Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/barsam2a

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Clawfist View Post

                        Generally speaking with regards to community maps - One of the many side effects of UTs history being so "diverse" is that there naturally are some huge deviations when it comes to people's perception of what makes a place tight and cramped vs just right vs way too open etc. Combine that with most everybody using wildly different language when it comes to describing these sort of differences as positive vs negative and why that is and you end up all over the place when it comes to how to scale your map relatively speaking. That being said we will continue to iterate on what we think works well for the game as a whole and try to set a standard in doing so with our content. I believe there is room for tight maps, open maps, and most of all a mix of both etc as long as they serve a proper purpose. To me UT is at it's best when that mix is employed to leverage strengths and weaknesses of weapons and movement in general and doesn't bias too heavily towards an extreme of either of the two.
                        Well said!


                        http://aggressivewarriors.com -=- {AW}'s Community Map Test Server -=-

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Weapon design like UT2004

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Player scale like UT.
                            Map scale like UT2004.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X