Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lea Observatory (Duel / DM Map)

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

  • replied
    Updated to new experimental version. Changed scale to 4% instead of 4.5%. Fixed a few collision issues.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I see collisions as a way to tweak the gameplay in a map. Ultimately it's the mapper who has to decide and implement the best they can collisions to optimize the gameplay as they see fit, since they are in charge of creating a whole experience for the players.

    Furthermore, this is a duel map. In duel such tweaks are frequent and basically what the players ask for. And don't forget that maps with little "bugs" like this are often better remembered for the fun they provide than an perfectly clean yet a bit boring map.

    My two cents

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by MoxNix View Post
    Not sure if you realize this or not, but just in case you don't.

    If you don't add collision to a mesh like your original grates in those windows, mesh surfaces will still block weapons fire, but not players, bots, cameras, etc... Add an invisible wall to block players and such and you wind up with a nice grate that allows firing between the bars while the bars still block shots and decals for hits on the mesh (burn marks etc.) look right.
    Collisions 101, friend. Yes, I knew about this. I didn't do that because the increased accuracy/precision required to hit between the bars, would invoke a temporary camping response. Players would stop momentarily to fire between the bars. I want players to do ridiculous mid air moving combos and sniper headshots through the windows. If your aim was off by a few pixels, your potentially ridiculous shot would be denied, and might even discourage future attempts. I want players to feel good for their efforts, not constantly let down by an overly steep difficulty curve. It's hard enough to hit shots through the windows. Additionally, what you're suggesting would actually bias in favor of the camping player, since it's easier to land a shot while standing still and close to the window, compared to a player who is far away and might be moving. As a fast paced arena shooter, you can see why I would perfer to avoid things that encourage camping (if I can help it). Trust me, I've given this some thought. lol
    Last edited by Neilz0r; 08-14-2015, 02:02 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by CaptainMigraine View Post
    Oh, and beforehand, the windows contained physical shutters... yet you could still shoot through the windows. That was probably even more confusing for people, which is one of the main reasons why I changed them to force fields.
    Not sure if you realize this or not, but just in case you don't.

    If you don't add collision to a mesh like your original grates in those windows, mesh surfaces will still block weapons fire, but not players, bots, cameras, etc... Add an invisible wall to block players and such and you wind up with a nice grate that allows firing between the bars while the bars still block shots and decals for hits on the mesh (burn marks etc.) look right.
    Last edited by MoxNix; 08-14-2015, 01:38 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Clawfist View Post
    I think that's definitely a step forward! Still potentially very confusing to people who have no idea of the functionality (where the hell did that shot just come from?) but that will always remain a learned thing to some degree plus we may solve that in a more unified manner later on regardless.

    Really just also needs more general player feedback.
    I can definitely see how newcomers would be confused. I honestly believe there isn't a perfect solution to this. You said that a pictogram might be the best way to convey at a glance info to the player. While, I agree, I think that could do more harm than good because it would be visually distracting, especially for players who are experienced and already know they can shoot through the forcefield. Lets say, hypothetically, a tutorial option were enabled for newcomers... then the pictogram would be okay, but the moment the tutorial option is disabled, the pictogram would need to disappear.

    Also, concerning players not knowing where certain shots came from... I can see that being an issue on an FFA map, since the player skill range is variable... but on a competitive duel map (such as lea), those types of elusive strategies are to be expected.

    Oh, and beforehand, the windows contained physical shutters... yet you could still shoot through the windows. That was probably even more confusing for people, which is one of the main reasons why I changed them to force fields.

    Anywho, I'm getting ready to submit the map. Hopefully it arrives in time for the next build!
    Last edited by Neilz0r; 08-14-2015, 12:50 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I think that's definitely a step forward! Still potentially very confusing to people who have no idea of the functionality (where the hell did that shot just come from?) but that will always remain a learned thing to some degree plus we may solve that in a more unified manner later on regardless.

    Really just also needs more general player feedback.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Clawfist View Post
    In the end going the pictogram route (icon sitting in the middle of the field with a crossed out image of either weapon or player) and unifying it all in one official blueprint would be best. That way we encourage staying consistent across levels with visual language which is important in general. Maybe for the time being a chainlink style diamond line pattern that may or may not invoke player memory of how chainlink behaved in previous games (i.e. shoot through but not pass through).
    Far away:


    Close up:


    I used a SphereMask with Pixel depth to pull off the effect.

    Thoughts?

    Originally posted by RPGWiZ4RD View Post
    After having tested it I'd say the scaling felt like ever so tiny bit too large I think, previously without scaling adjustment I would argue it might be ever so tiny bit too small, for me something in-between would probably feel best.
    4% scale might have been the ticket, so I'll count your vote towards 4.5% being too large. Thanks for the feedback!
    Last edited by Neilz0r; 08-12-2015, 09:01 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    After having tested it I'd say the scaling felt like ever so tiny bit too large I think, previously without scaling adjustment I would argue it might be ever so tiny bit too small, for me something in-between would probably feel best.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by MoxNix View Post
    I do wonder why you went with 4.5% larger scale instead of say 5% which is hardly any different but would fit the grid much better... Was it because 5% broke some moves you didn't want to break and 4.5% didn't?
    I playtested it at 5% and it felt too large.. went to 4%, it felt really nice, but just to be sure I wanted to test 4.5%. This seems to be about the sweet spot. The scaling part is a final step. I'll be keeping 2 versions of Lea, one scaled, and one without scaling. The one without scaling will be the version I make modifications to. Once the map is scaled, everything's off the grid. That's just a fact of things. That's a big reason why I converted all of the BSP to static meshes. There's no sense trying to make changes to the scaled version, when scaling it is literally a 2 click process.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Yeah I figured that might be the case, especially since you mentioned draw calls. Draw calls are more of a problem for older CPUs with lower single core performance (until the game uses DX12 all draw calls are on just one core). That's why I specified the hardware.

    I tested it on all Epic with Temporal AA. 110 FPS rock solid offline. Just me in the map though, no bots or other players.

    The old version I got 120 FPS most of the time, even online (with AA off though). With a lot of players in it would ocassionally drop as low as 90 FPS (but only very briefly). I cap FPS at 120.

    I do wonder why you went with 4.5% larger scale instead of say 5% which is hardly any different but would fit the grid much better... Was it because 5% broke some moves you didn't want to break and 4.5% didn't?
    Last edited by MoxNix; 08-12-2015, 03:24 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    @moxnix, it seems like the biggest performance gain will be noticed on older cpus. Your i5 is much faster than my i7. Also, the higher quality your graphics, the more of a gpu toll there will be. If you play on absolute lowest graphics, sure it won't look pretty but the performance should be easily +100 Fps.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    A hair bigger, not so blue, both improvements.

    I don't see "drastic performance improvements", maybe a little bit but nothing very noticeable. That's on an i5 4690 and 2G GTX 960, a good midrange system, maybe it's more of an improvement on lower end machines.

    I don't like the new forcefield effects either. Those windows now look you should be able to jump right through them but you can't. Yet weapons fire does go through. Confusing, at least with the old grates it was clearly obvious players can't pass through and then you'd go "hmm... can I shoot between the bars?".
    Last edited by MoxNix; 08-12-2015, 02:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Clawfist View Post
    Looking good man!

    A little concerned about introducing another type of force field that essentially looks the same as the one we are using but does the exact opposite. The force field idea in general is hard enough to communicate as it is but maybe you can try at least using a different alpha instead of the scan line look that our version also uses. I can't think of anything obvious that really says "only players can't pass here" without going very much on the nose and using human pictograms and whatnot.

    In the end going the pictogram route (icon sitting in the middle of the field with a crossed out image of either weapon or player) and unifying it all in one official blueprint would be best. That way we encourage staying consistent across levels with visual language which is important in general. Maybe for the time being a chainlink style diamond line pattern that may or may not invoke player memory of how chainlink behaved in previous games (i.e. shoot through but not pass through).
    I'm sure I can come up with something. The diamond style pattern you mentioned seems like a good place to start. A force field effect that informs the player that you can't pass, doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to pull off... and is probably a good idea anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Really dig the changes

    I'm deceive the jumpad on the 4th pic is still almost in the middle of the way, hurting flow, ho well

    THX for the update version

    Note: so now, the old thread can be move to the "Work in Progress" section

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Looking good man!

    A little concerned about introducing another type of force field that essentially looks the same as the one we are using but does the exact opposite. The force field idea in general is hard enough to communicate as it is but maybe you can try at least using a different alpha instead of the scan line look that our version also uses. I can't think of anything obvious that really says "only players can't pass here" without going very much on the nose and using human pictograms and whatnot.

    In the end going the pictogram route (icon sitting in the middle of the field with a crossed out image of either weapon or player) and unifying it all in one official blueprint would be best. That way we encourage staying consistent across levels with visual language which is important in general. Maybe for the time being a chainlink style diamond line pattern that may or may not invoke player memory of how chainlink behaved in previous games (i.e. shoot through but not pass through).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X