Hey everyone,

I'm still pretty new to mapping.. or at least I think I am. A few people have told me that I'm good at creating them, but I normally find myself getting too angry at my work and deleting it. This is probably because I don't know how to plan ahead; which I'm working on... because if I don't, every map I ever try to create will be a failure.


The reason why I created this thread was to ask the community what they like to see in HL2:DM maps. I've never mapped for it before, and haven't even played it a whole lot.. but I'm interested in giving it a try. I will end this with another one of my main questions:

What's the basic structure to a HL2:DM map?

• Aaron

I don't know about some basic or standard stucture but I can give you some hints on what I like in DM maps. :smile:

*Vertical Combat: Chance of a death from above will always spice up the gameplay.
*Set spawns some way apart from each other: No one likes to the second they spawn.
*Place powerful weapons in dangerous places: Players might want to think twice before running in the open. :biggrin:
*Place some guns close to the spawns: So people don't have to run around with just a pistol for ages and get killed by those who got in the game before them over and over again...

Oh and please draw at least somekind of a quick layout on paper and put a bit thought on it. :smile: It doesn't matter if the final thing doesn't resemble the original plan at all, but you'll always have something to fall back to when your creativity fails(I've done this with every non-test map I've done).

Happy mapping. :smile: Perhaps one day I'll pick the new Hammer again...

---

''Everyone wades in s**t until they're competent enough to walk on it. Jesus style.''
Dystopia - Empires

Basic structure/design is not really that different from a HLDM map. You need good connectivity between areas, good flow around the map, and vertical combat areas.

For HL2DM the biggest difference is having junk to be thrown into people with the gravgun. The amount and the type depends on your tastes. Too much crap strewn about hurts movement and can be annoying, so keep that in mind. Because of the physics objects' tendency to get in the way its helpful to avoid tight hallways/doorways and chokepoints as much as possible.

It's hard to get any more specific without knowing your gameplay/mapping background however :razz:

Actually, I just installed HLDM about an hour ago.. so I have no experience there, either. The only game I think I ever released a map for was Quake 3, and it wasn't a public release because it sucked so bad. I've worked with UT2K4, too, but never finished a map.

Gameplay background?
Do you mean what FPS games have I played?

Yes, cause 'What makes a good DM map' means very different things if you've never played a deathmatch game or have experience in like Q3 and just want to know the different things in HL. Plus I like to use maps as examples of what to do and what to avoid, but I only know HL and UT1 :/

Well, games I've played all the way through:
Quake, Quake II, Quake III, Half-Life, Half-Life 2, Red Faction, and UT2K4.

And there have been bits and pieces of:
Doom trilogy, Duke Nukem..

And I can't really think of any other FPS games (for PC) that I've played.

oops shoulda clarified in that I meant multiplayer games oh well. Do you have any specific questions about HL2DM mapping or more deathmatch design in general?

The only games I'm playing right now are Q3:A, CS:S.

My questions are consisting of both, but leaning more towards HL2DM because it features things that most games don't have. However, I think most of those questions will fall into the editing forum.

Perhaps, you could recommend me some HL2DM maps that you like?
I will download them and play through and try to find out what HL2DM is all about. In this way, I can kind of take my time going through things. I'd like to be able to figure this all out by the end of the month so I can start working on it. I'd really like to release a map.

Rule 1: No killboxes.
Rule 2: NO killboxes.

Other than that, what Scythe said. :smile:

---

My site

lmao. I've already figured out the no killbox thing. I haven't seen a good one (if one exists).
I want to create a map that has great gameplay and looks damn good, too.

hmm, well lets see...

there's the three valve maps that come with HL2DM
dm_lockdown - good map that is hurt by the tight as f**k doorways and hallways, the connectivity is a little weak due to being mainly one level and having too much sprawl, the big showers area is alot of fun though
dm_overwatch - terrible connectivity between the levels of the center building, holding the camp spot up top with the rocket launcher determines the winner every game, and the bottom floor of the building becomes a bloodfest due to the overabundance of props and too many player spawns close by
dm_steamlab - remake of datacore from HLDM, a good HLDM map with good connectivity but has problems with props due to its enclosed nature

dm_torque (ignore who made it :eek: ): http://www.snarkpit.net/maps.php?map=1543

• there's too many props in the map, the architecture is terrible, and it supposedly ran poorly for people when it was released due to how open it is, but for connectivity and vertical combat I know of nothing better. It's basically overwatch done right, plenty of action from every direction and both props and weaponry are effective. but I am biased :/

dm_np_refinery: http://www.snarkpit.net/maps.php?map=1654

• architecture style is very unique to this author, and he is one of the HLDM greats, just don't try copying it. Very fun map and well polished.

dm_island17: http://www.snarkpit.net/maps.php?map=1580

• very fun map, not as much prop combat due to the very open nature of the map. Had performance issues back in the day as well, but I never noticed them. Sniping at the top of the lighthouse is nigh impossible.

dm_rebar: http://www.snarkpit.net/maps.php?map=1412

• one of the best weapon dominated maps out there. I complained about the lack of props when it was released but variety is the spice of life.

There's got to be more but I haven't played HL2DM in some time. There's also the contest winner maps that I assume you have. I don't remember the names but two of the three are absolutely horrible and the other is a UT reject that plays ok but with a lack of props.

---

how to not make a dm map can be highlighted by
dm_morbid: http://www.snarkpit.net/maps.php?map=1579

• terrible connectivity and zero flow, you basically have a linear path from anywhere you spawn and that makes gameplay slow and flavorless. Running around in circles is about as fun as it sounds. Classic example of graphics over gameplay (cause it looks fantastic)

---

as for general HL2DM mapping:
-never use ladders, valve changed them in HL2 and they suck ass
-avoid putting the contact grenades and the smg near each other
-avoid putting the 2nd fire orb things and the overwatch rifle near each other
-try to balance props and weapon usage throughout the map, too many physics props piss people off and get in the way and if there's too few you are basically playing a slower less fun HLDM
-I found it best to put small physics objects in tighter areas and bigger ones in the larger open areas
-the best props for general throwing are radiators, buzzsaws, sinks, and toilets. Tables and desks are good in open areas but are tough to use if you are running around. Barrels suck, and explosive barrels can get annoying. Death by watermelon is the ultimate insult kill.

because of what you start with in HL2DM (smg, grav gun, last resort pistol, crowbar, and grenades) basically everyone has three different combat options available, so it's important to allow all of them to play to their strengths and player taste. That means having close combat areas, open areas, some props within reach, etc.

There's also the contest winner maps that I assume you have. I don't remember the names but two of the three are absolutely horrible and the other is a UT reject that plays ok but with a lack of props.

Does anyone happen to know the names? If not, then I have no idea if I have them.. I'm guessing I don't.

Yak_Fighter,
I never even expected that sort of response. Thank you.
The information is greatly appreciated.

Oh--

-avoid putting the contact grenades and the smg near each other
-avoid putting the 2nd fire orb things and the overwatch rifle near each other

This is a DM no-no.. doing this would make moving around not as high of a priority, correct?

I think the contest maps are automatically downloaded when you update the game but I'm not sure.

And yes, they would discourage movement through the map if placed next to each other, however the real reason I would avoid it is that they are pretty much one shot kills (overwatch alt fire is almost always guaranteed 2 kills every shot) and can dominate maps. I did have a brain freeze and forget that everyone starts with the SMG when typing that so 'avoiding putting contact grenades and the smg near each other' doesn't make much sense :/

As for map flow its up to the author, generally you don't want to promote camping but in HL2DM death comes so fast and so often its rather tough to successfully camp something like you can in Quake3 (unless map design allows it, see overwatch for example). When I was placing weapons and ammo I would delibrately put them in totally different sections of the map to promote movement. For example in torque I put the rocket launcher on the third level while extra ammo for it is on the ground level, which allows people who really like the rocket launcher to jump down to the tactically disadvantageous area in order to use their favored weapon more. It also discourages people from parking on the rocket launcher, but the openness of the map makes that suicidal anyway. I also put the crossbow on the second level facing the rocket in a dark corner so people can snipe the guys going for the rocket launcher.

However, authors can do weapon and ammo placement differently depending on what they want as there are no hard rules about it and it totally depends on the map design.

Thanks again, Yak_Fighter.
I'm probably going to spend all of today working on a theme/plan now.
I'm going to stop asking you questions now so you can get on with other things. I'm sure other people will post. And again, thanks for your help.

hehe no prob, it takes me back a few years. I can't believe I released dm_torque almost 2 years ago

That's a nice writeup there Yak saves post as a .txt

---

o

Another thing I'd like to know:
What are the stages of development for mapping?
I know names (alpha, beta) of some but I'm sure there are more. Alpha's and Beta's break down, too, don't they? What I'm trying to ask is what actually goes on during these stages?

I'd like to be as professional as I can when releasing a map.. if I ever do it.

Well, don't be worried with that, because people don't understand what Alpha and Beta stages are anyway.

In all software design (this includes games):

Alpha: The map's layout is done. Now, you test to check that layout. See where the choke points are, that sort of thing. At this point, there's a good chance your map will be fairly bland looking as you haven't detailed or textured much. Entity work that's dependent on the player can be done here too.

Beta: The layout is final, it will not change. No new ideas come into the mix at this point unless you find some disastrous problem you missed before. This is where you tweak the look and do all your optimizing. The next step is a final release. There are many more beta iterations, usually, than alpha iterations.

Final: The map is done. You can update it if you want, but chances are you caught the big problems in the alpha stage. Generally, if you release another version, some major changes need to be apparent, not just minor fixes here and there, you're suppose to catch those in the testing phases.

Of course, no one actually sticks to that, because no one besides actual development teams map in that manner (layout and brush work, test, then detail). Most people kind of map what comes to mind so that doesn't work for them. But if you want to hold yourself to a deadline, then this is what you want to go with. I would further suggest, that you have a very detailed idea of what you want with the theme and layout and cordon off sections and label them (on paper or something) and work section by section, then you can also hold yourself to those deadlines. You know exactly what you need to do and you can adequately estimate how much time you can do it in.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

I'll stick with the design stages now that I know what they are. If I try to work on something any other way I'll probably get upset with what I'm doing and delete it.. making all the time I spent on it worthless.

Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if I didn't have so much trouble coming up with ideas. I used to have them all the time but, now that I've switched to Source, I don't know what to do anymore.

People's level of blame that they place on the source engine is really unfounded. When HL2 first came out people said "it's too easy to make something that looks nice", now people are bitching that it's too hard. Give me a break. You can use the techniques that you used in HL1 and you can use them to a greater degree to do amazing things.

You don't have to use props or physics objects. You don't have to use displacements. It's all optional. You also don't have to know how to model. While you don't have to use displacements, using them allows you to make complex brush objects with far less of an impact on performance. You can make giant statues with very little impact on performance.

But, as before, you still need to be mindful of vis, leafs, and portals. Even in that area the source engine allows more control so you can build larger, more complex, environments.

My point is: the source engine most definitely doesn't limit you. Only you do.

The only thing that stands in a "mappers" way is textures. But that's always been a problem. As I remember people got flak for using HL1 textures in their maps past the 3 year old mark of the game. Creating textures is still the same process, you just have to work at higher resolutions.

[/rant]

Good luck with your map. Post something up here as soon as possible to get suggestions and feed back at the earliest possible stage in your development. If you get that layout down to a T, then you have the perfect foundation for a really fantastic map.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Crono,
I was never complaining that Source limits me. I was saying that when I finally got Source, I lost touch with being able to come up with ideas. Eh, I'm doing a bad job at explaining this... Ah.. here:

I lost my ability to sketch up creative maps around the time I purchased HL2.

That should work.
I thought I was going to get a good bit of work done on this layout today.. but it turns out a drew a box with a octagon around it. I have no idea why I did it. I have no inspiration anymore. :sad:

Also, I never made maps for HL1.. well, not DM maps. And the maps I did make were stupid. It was usually a room, and you'd walk into a trigger, a scientist would come over and push a button and then get killed by a zombie that broke through a wall. I must've made like ten maps like that.

It was more of a general comment as almost everyone who was an avid HL1 mapper and did not "suck it up" when hl2 came out has those remarks.

It's just getting old and tiring to hear that people's inability to create on an engine is the engine's fault when it removed previous boundaries while keeping the same interface and usability in tact.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

:rolleyes: crono all I have to do is point at the lack of maps and mods for HL2 and my point has been made

you do have to use props for detail, given that
-your map cannot graphically compete against others, as they add complexity that you just cannot replicate otherwise
-they are used because the engine doesn't really have that much more ability to deal with complex or large areas, it's more of a shortcut than actually having to accomodate more brushes
-none of the model textures are usuable in a map in their default form so you can't add brush detail using those textures

using displacements to make statues or whatever isn't gonna change the fact that you don't have suitable textures

not placing phys objects in your map is great as long as you aren't mapping for HL2DM...

So while yes, technically Source is more powerful than anything HL1 could produce, to actually produce any unique content you pretty much have to have the skills of a mapper, a modeler, and a pixel herder. Given the rarity of the last two the majority of the editing community is up a creek without a paddle. Sure, you'll retort that all those skills would be necessary to make it in the industry, but all that does is shrink the potential amateur editing base more and more because not everybody wants to be in 'the biz' or spend months learning how to model and texture just to be able to map. That's adding boundaries, not creating them. Or more correctly it expanded the horizons into all the wrong directions for your average mapper and suddenly because those avenues are available you are forced to take them in order to retain your previous level of map quality. That's great and all if you really care about graphics but nearly none of these additions expand map gameplay options. I'm still stuck not using vehicles in my maps, I'm still stuck with smaller outdoor areas or large areas with zero detail in them, and I'm still stuck worrying about vis blocking in the same size rooms as before.

Oh and some of us actually released HL2 maps and saw just how 'powerful' the engine was. It's basically got HL1 + zhlt compiler's brush capacity plus physics and tons of models for detail.

There's some good arguments here, both ways...but.

The bottom line is, Source has more potential than HL1 did. Potential is only as good as your willingness to use it. Yes, the road is longer and harder, but the results are equally more detailed.

I would suggest to any new mapper - make simple, fun, maps. This weekend, I plan on posting a project that I've been wanting to do for a while. I will be developing a concept from layout to finished map, showing the process as I go. Who knows how long this will take, but I plan on creating a fairly small level. Maybe it will help newer mappers see just how important good planning is - sounds like there is a need for this sort of thing.

I know planning is important.
I also know that, for me, it's the biggest pain in the ass.

I'm interested in viewing your project, though.

I have 2 CS:S maps under "construction" atm, but my friend pushed me to play HL2 DM again, and needless to say it was quite diffrent from CS. I actually got intrested about the game again and thought i could make a map for it next, so im gonna keep my eyes on this thread.

Anyways, some things ive noticed in custom maps i've joined. First of all the better weapons should be in open and dangerous place, so theres some risk taking those. Nothing is more annoying than some little window skyhigh where you find rocket launcher and start dominating. I liked the notice on more vertical level design, should keep that on mind myself too :wink: . Weapon placement seems to be the biggest problem, they seem way too random. Its nice to find revolver, but then bullets from totally elsewhere. Some weapons that got secondary fire (especially the Mp7 grenades since they seems to be easiest kill in game) should be placed a bit further from the weapon, otherwise it comes kinda easy.

Map "themes" comes quite similar unless you make custom textures/models. Ive always liked outdoor maps because everything seems more.. simple. Still indoor maps are better for DM, not that much open space so you might actually kill someone.

Its good to make some plans about the map beforehand. I usually do almost everything without much planning so it doesnt come that good. Still need to work with that one :razz: . Some drawings or something, even basic areas of maps, and as said, they usually dont come quite as you planned when you might get some better ideas.

---

Just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it.

I found it important to fill every corridor, room/area with as many ideas regarding gameplay and architecture as possible. "Idea" isn't equal to "detail". You can have a room that only consists of a ramp and a shotgun but it might serve as an important interconnection, add interesting vertical gameplay and could have an interesting shape and architecture.

Basically every room/corridor should add something special to the map. It should be dense.

In CS there are a lot of corridors that are just there for timing the clash between Ts and CTs. In DM there are no such corridors. Everything needs a purpose and has to work from every direction you enter (and there should be 2 or 3 entrances at all times, to avoid dead ends and running in walls while trying to escape an RPG guy). It's much more dense and compressed, gameplay-wise. There are no introduction or "filler" parts. At least, there shouldn't be :wink:

---

Why snark works.

Finger said:
The bottom line is, Source has more potential than HL1 did. Potential is only as good as your willingness to use it. Yes, the road is longer and harder, but the results are equally more detailed.

.

I agree but don't.

The fact that the end result can be argued looks better, doesn't automatially mean that it is. I honestly feel that the unreal engine beats the pants off of anything, but there are damed few others here who would agree with me on that point. But the fact is that most maps created for Unreal look fantastic.

The fact of the matter is however that the magic that came with HL1 is missing in HL2. I honestly feel that it isn't totally because of us oldtimers desire for the good ol' days either.

Granted, the editor is basically the same, but the joy associated with creation just isn't there.

I also realize that my being map free for HL2 doesn't exactly give me solid ground to form any argument with a basis to draw upon, so most could, and prolly will discount my opinion as groundless.
I have, and continue to believe that it was MUCH harder to succeed using HL1 than HL2, so I am not arguing that HL2's difficulty is the reason...

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Granted, the editor is basically the same, but the joy associated with creation just isn't there.

Personally, I couldn't disagree more.

---

i eat paint

fishy said:
Personally, I couldn't disagree more.

If I were alone in my thinking, you'd more than likely be right but if you scroll up to a very respected member and read his reply, it reflects my point.

all I have to do is point at the lack of maps and mods for HL2 and my point has been made

The joy, just isn't there. Course, there is some level of interest, or we'd not even have the little we have. :razz:

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Heck, the issue with making custom models and textures is the reason I've hooked up with a couple of mods. Not only do I have access to modellers and texturers, but I also have the perfect package for releasing finished work. The hard bit is finding a mod that is doing something you also want to do.

Working on Ham & Jam means I have the opportunity to work with some of the best custom content makers the DOD community ever produced. And when I find some more free time I'll also be contributing some maps to Brutal, which also has an excellent team.

It is a shame though that the skills/knowledge bar has been moved out of reach of a lot of individual mappers. But I suppose thats how it goes. I've been doing some training and learning modelling, as well as developing my texture making abilities. Nothing stays the same for ever, particularly not something as diverse and changing as the games industry.

---

Ham and Jam Contributor
http://www.hamandjam.org

'Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!'

I'd definitely agree that the Source engine has more potential. Potential doesn't equal the number of quality maps from the community. It's just the possibility for interesting and fun maps to show up and that is certainly given with HL2.

The physics interaction alone creates a flood of gameplay variation that hasn't been and probably will not be seen in any other game for a long time. Plus the entities of HL1 days are still there and have been improved and expanded considerably. It's the potential to do something new, that isn't possible with HL1. Will the best map for HL2DM ever be as good as the best HL1DM map? I don't know, maybe they'll be of very similar quality. But for HL2 there are still more possibilities to be explored, new impressions that are so different from HL1 that they deserve more attention.

Reading the gazillionst post about the Source engine's mapping shortcomings I feel like the "good old days" factor isn't 10 or 20% of the impression, it's more like 80 or 90%. Worldcraft was on the HL1 CD. That's how I found it. That was in 1998. But when were all the great, and I mean the really fantastic and smooth maps released for the HL1 engine? Those that hold the standards today? It certainly wasn't 1998. It started maybe late 2000 or 2001. More likely 2002 or even 2003.

There was a long phase of struggling and hacking around with the tools. Very basic maps were released with no custom content, no entity work that pushes any limits. Frustrating VRAD crashes after 4 hours. Leaks that had to be tracked in game via black and white pointfiles. No, it wasn't all that much fun. The only thing that was different was the fact that HL1 was and will always be better than HL2 (note: this is not sarcasm, just a plain fact :biggrin: ). But HL1 gets more and more of a closed chapter. Now that I think about it so specifically, yes, I'd love to see HL1 and its mods to live on for eternity and people making new stuff for it. It hasn't been replaced by HL2. HL2 has just been added. And it would be a shame also to not try and use all the new potential.

These days, HL2DM must have its 2nd anniversary or so. Some very nice maps have been released for it. Many new and a lot of mediocre ones show up every day. I think many mappers expected the standard of quality from the HL1 days to smoothly continue within HL2 just with a few more polygons added there and a couple of new entities here. But it didn't happen. A new editing environment has to be learned. New mistakes have to be made so they can be avoided. There's so much you can do with HL2. So much to explore. HL2 was released when it was very trendy to make games "realistic" - and gray (looking at TF2 these times will be over, soon). That's not my personal preference but HL2 still uses the theme so well that there's enough to do with it.

Again, HL2 will never replace HL1, at least not artistically. I think that's what many fear. It is just an addition to the mapping community. Even if it's not as much fun as HL1. It's just worth checking out. It's worth making maps for it. And if you do, why not try and make them as good as you can? That's what keeps me mapping for HL2DM albeit having used so many other, much more comfortable editors and engines (oh, wonderful RedEdit!). HL2 hasn't been as much "fun" to explore for me as HL1 because it was more of a changeover than a new thing. But learning all the new possibilities is certainly as much fun as it was with HL1. I had to dig deeper, but it's all there.

sorry for all the text, I was in trance.

---

Why snark works.

If you think the Source engine requires you to rely on models and learn modeling if you want to have any unique detail.... try mapping for Unreal engine games. Many are just boxes with models to fill them up, there's very little brushwork done except for the most basic architecture. I agree that it's getting harder to map with just editor skills and brushwork, which is frustrating. But interesting brushwork and excellent gameplay can still get a Source map farther than a UT2k4 map in terms of overall appeal.

My main problem is that HL2DM f**king sucks, and there are no mods out yet that I care to map for. Therefore my motivation to map for Source just isn't there.

Amanderino: I recommend starting out with low expectations for your first map. Go for something very simple, make it a basic little map that you can learn from and actually complete. Too many new mappers start with grand designs, get frustrated because these are beyond their abilities, and end up quitting. Make a simple little deathmatch map, even if it's just some random corridors and rooms. Even if it's nothing you want to release. You will learn from doing it, and get a sense of accomplishment from being able to finish it. Raise your goals from there on subsequent maps.

I happened across this thread while Googling my own maps a while back; it is about what makes a good mapper, and therefore what makes a good map. You might want to take a look at it, and at the maps it refers to:

http://www.snarkpit.net/forums.php?forum=1&topic=1842&start=30

Actually, I'm doing just what you suggested, Jinx.

I realized that since I haven't been playing HL2:DM that long, it'd be way to hard for me to map for it (actually, I mean for me to even like it.. but it's the same thing almost). I went back to mapping for CS:S. I decided to make an fy_ map.. but it's not going to be retarded like most others. I plan on spending at least a month on it (instead of a few hours). I'm trying to put all I know into it.

• Aaron

what, only a month? :wink:

I mean, that I'm not going to go under that. I don't think I'll need more than that though. Unless I decide to go crazy on detail, which I probably will. I don't know, I might quit already. I hate everything I map.

Jinx said:
I happened across this thread while Googling my own maps a while back; it is about what makes a good mapper, and therefore what makes a good map. You might want to take a look at it, and at the maps it refers to:

http://www.snarkpit.net/forums.php?forum=1&topic=1842&start=30

As long as you overlook the off topic tangents that thread has some good stuff in it. Sadly, I nearly ruined that thread.

I wouldn't exactly know what key words to use, but if you search the General topic, you'll find a s**tload of similar threads dealing with mapping techniques.

The basic rule of thumb for new people is: "Keep it simple". Thats tougher than you'd expect.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

That's okay, all the people saying they loved Revenant made up for it Orph. :wink:

BTW, your avatar made me decide switch to WINTERTIME Motoko now rofl.

This is specific to UT Deathmatch mapping, but many aspects of it apply to all DM maps, and even maps for other mods. I'm sure there are similar tutorial out there, including on Snarkpit:
http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/wiki/Map_Flow

Probably the biggest mapping no-no is dead-ends. They frustrate player movement and promote camping. Every area needs at least 2 ways in/out. Otherwise it will play like crap.

One example of dead-ends that I see a lot in maps in real-life settings- bathrooms. If you must have them, make them locked doors with signs. Or come up with some creative reason there are 2 ways in/out, like having them in the middle of a building and accessible from either side.

Other links:
http://www.snarkpit.net/editing.php?page=tutorials&game=HL2&id=211

Jinx said:
My main problem is that HL2DM f**king sucks, and there are no mods out yet that I care to map for. Therefore my motivation to map for Source just isn't there.

I feel the same way, though I've recently taken to prop modelling instead.

---

o

Agent Smith said:
And when I find some more free time I'll also be contributing some maps to Brutal, which also has an excellent team.

Come on in man, we need more Snarkpitters there as i'm currently the only active one :wink:

---

These words are my diaries screaming out loud

If you're a fan of Action Half-Life or The Specialists, I'd recommend checking out Distraction for HL2:
Distraction Mod

There are a lot of old AHL community people working on it that are good folks. Once I finish my current AHL map I'm considering joining up.

Note: Distraction is one of the few mods out there that mostly needs MAPPERS as opposed to coders etc. Other than maps, I guess it's quite far along.

Just took a glance at Brutal. Looks a little cheesy to me, especially the player models. Except for Calis, who is fap-tacular.

Well, I got very excited when I started this thread, and started to develop ideas. Sadly, it all just got shot down because I have no idea what to do. I've started numerous ideas (on graph paper first, but one started in Hammer and got me the farthest.) and now I hate every one of them.

It started that I wanted to map for Deathmatch.. that didn't go well, at first. So, I moved back to Counter-strike. Hooray! I had an idea. I did about an eighth of the work and said "I drew out this whole layout.. and I can't make it look good now.." so that got thrown aside. Now I'm back to deathmatch, and had two map ideas. The one I started in Hammer gave me the most (a grand three rooms, that two were awful..) but I couldn't figure out anything else as I had no planning. The other, I started today.. and then realized two minutes into it that I lacked the skill to create a vital piece.

How the hell do you guys get such good ideas for maps?
I can only ever design about one room that I like and then I'm lost.. whether I planned it out or not. I think I'm trying to do too much... but I don't know how to stop trying to put so much in right from the start.

I apologize for the ranting.

Ideas? Thats required?

Shoot bud, I just make maps. I've never really had an idea in advance, unless you count the castle.

Just make one area. Doesn't matter how big. Small works just as well as large. Then add a second, making sure that the second fits in theme. Attach the two. Preferably, without any great length of hallway. Then make a third area and tie it into either #1, #2 or both.

By the time you get to area #3, you'll have some idea of your intended goal I promise.

Leave the little details until later, at least for your first map.

Post your progress, and let us fill in your blank spots.

Damned few mappers at snarkpit have made a map 100% on their own. Theres no shame in assistance.

Let us point you toward greatness.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Well, designing something out from beginning to end on paper is more difficult. It's just more efficient if you know what you want. It's up to a person's personal preference.

Here's something you could try: give your self very strict limits on time and size. Like, one large central room with passages around it and circular connectivity (it would at least make the thing playable from a DM perspective), without thinking of a theme first, just take a certain amount of time to bust out a map in hammer.
Kind of like a speed test sort of thing. If you know you only have, say, an hour and a half to make a playable map, and you start with a rather small area. I'm sure you could come up with something that will, at the very least, get other creative ideas going. If you want to make it a bit easier, find a picture on google that looks like an interesting area and follow it for a theme. Not really to recreate it, but just to get some better ideas.

In any case, it's an exercise and not really a technique for building the final product. But it should give you some nice knowledge.

You can also try to make different types of rooms and see how you like them, they don't really have to be for anything in particular and I think that's where you're having trouble. Don't be afraid to hack and slash stuff you've made (make sure you have a backup, of course).

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

So, how many times do you think I'm going to run through trial-and-error. Most of the time, I make something and (for this example) it's too big. I go back to Hammer and cut the size down. I recompile and run the game.. which is the longest process for me.. my computer actually shouldn't be running anything worth playing.. I'll give specs at the bottom. Normally, I try to get a basic room all done with the NODRAW texture, then before I compile, I add in the dev textures.

I'm going to redesign a bit of the map I started working on and then I'll look to see how to post it on here. My only question about it is: will I be able to update the file? or do I have to post a new thing for it?


My computer specs:
Pentium III
1.1ghz
512 RAM
nvidia geforce fx 5500 (direct x 8).. (for some reason I get hdr in cs now)

^My broke ass built this computer from random computer stuff in my house.
I call it Frankenstein. :smile:

Trial and error is the only way of learning how to map (learning pretty much anything, btw). I'm still learning new things with every map I build but it gets more and more specific.

If your map takes longer than a few minutes to compile you won't come around reading this tutorial a few times. Even a pentium III should be able to compile a basic (but well optimized) map in 10 minutes or so. :smile:

---

Why snark works.

I actually have had that page book marked for quite some time. I knew optimization was a very important thing.. and I was trying to figure it all out. I still don't know much about it. :sad:

The longest compile time I've ever had was 2 hours, 11 minutes.. but then again.. I made a box that stretched all the way across the grid in hammer because I wanted to see how big I could make a map (I'm planning out a small mod, I guess.. it's going to be a couple chapters long.. all game content, just something fun to play).

Normally, it only takes me around 2 minutes to get the compile and then for the game to load, and most of that time is in the loading. Most of the time, I have to do extra work because hl2 decides that the server times out.. even though it's my own. I guess time isn't necessarily my problem.. my problem is more of "this is a pain in the ass".