anyone mind inviting me to the func_msgboard steam group? 

 

Bяёєzёєp
or, if it's easier, my steam profile:
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Breezeep/ 

I kinda messed up on the name above... 

This is just a heads up to anybody. If you use an Nvidia graphics card, and still occasionally run Winquake, do NOT update to the latest drivers, as it will crash any version of Winquake.

Downgrading to an older driver won't fix the issue either, as the firmware doesn't rollback.

Thanks Nvidia. 

The following quote is from:

http://www.celephais.net/board/view_thread.php?id=60983&start=66


Actually, the whole vet notion is responsible for a trend in Q1SP that caused the majority of levels especially in the second half of the last decade (including my own) to be grind gameplay - which I don't enjoy anymore.

I didn't play that map and felt like it was not appropriate for me to post in that thread.

However, I pretty much agree with that quote. I offer my following comments and would like to know how others feel. Do you agree or disagree?

When I start a map and see the monster count is over 200, I immediately develop negative feelings. I also have begun to dislike "epic endings". You know, boss fights and multiple waves of enemies "porting in".

In most cases, I don't think the player should ever see or hear a monster port in. When I come upon an "epic ending" I usually just go into god mode and exit the map. The best word I can find for them is "tedious".

When I play a Quake map these days, I am much more interested in the architecture and lighting than I am in the actual fighting with monsters. To me, the monsters are just there to give me something to do while I am wandering around admiring the brushwork.

When I see multiple engine limits exceeded and new bsp formats are required, then I can't play that map. It makes me wonder why the map was for Quake, it seems it should have been made for a different game.

I am currently working on finalizing my Quake map and hope to have it finished soon. I think comments made here might help me.

I don't think I am very good at all when it comes to the monsters part of mapping. 

When I start a map and see the monster count is over 200, I immediately develop negative feelings.

I still haven't finished Arcanum, for that very reason. I still enjoy fighting monsters a lot, but I dislike massive grindfests that have more to do with Painkiller than Quake, with cramped rooms, multiple waves per room, and stunted resources.

It's as if some mappers are trying to copy Warp Spasm without actually taking note of what made Warp Spasm a manageable grind - good pacing, good balance, and a great atmosphere. One time when I was playing a mod, and the first thing I saw after finishing a big monsters map was a Shambler and a monster count in the 200's, I quit and never looked back.

Luckily, the past two years have been fairly refreshing in this regard.

I do find it alarming how little maps make use of nail shooters or crushers, though. There's more to Quake than just combat, FFS! 

The newest quakespasm 32bit works in windows98 and up. There seems to be no flaws or niggles, a reference archive. Alpha_mask texture support as in mark5 would be excellent though. 

That would of been better posted in the quakespasm thread. But also, it has bsp2 support. 

If you need software, you can try qbism's Super8
http://super8.qbism.com/

Adds in some new features like transparency while still keeping it very 'software' feeling. 

I like big maps for the immersion, for the same reason I like to include lots of ambient sounds.

My current and future maps will all be above a 200 monster count. The largest monster count was warpc at 666 on hard.

At the time there was a lot of discussion about how grueling the experience was for some. I can understand the sentiment, but unfortunately I'm mapping for me. Of course, I listen to feedback and try and get of much of it as possible (I can't know everything!) but my style of mapping is large and complicated.

Having said that, my favourite part of the process is placing the monsters. I couldn't just dump a block of enemies into a room and forget about it, that'd drive me nuts because I play test the levels a lot. Which is also why I include the randomiser feature - so I don't get bored playing my own stuff.

To be honest I'm a bit nonplussed that others enjoyed my levels so much, considering how solipsistic my build mentality is.

But hey, I'm still learning. 

I can think of maps that have 80 monsters that were more tedious than a 200+ monster map because of the way the monsters were placed and/or the combats were setup. Having said that, if we are talking about tronyn maps, then yes I have to be in the right mood to play them. but that's not because of monster counts per se, but the style of gameplay that is featured (ie monstrous hordes).

Also, and I dont know if others do the same, but I never check the monster count at the start or throughout play because I like to go in cold and not have an idea of how many monsters there will be or how big the map might be or how close to the end I might be. 

That's quite an engine, I'm surprised I haven't heard of it until now. It's very slick, tons of features, and has that authentic software Quake look. But is it really truly software? I ask because, it works flawlessly on my system, whereas any other software engine does not. (Thanks Nvidia) 

I sort of agree, but then again it really depends on the size of the map and the type of enemies used. Obviously, 200 monsters in a large map is a different matter than the same number in a small one. In the first case, it may be fine, in the latter most likely grinding. And a higher monster count may just work if the most of them are weak ones like grunts, dogs and maybe zombies. What puts me off is the type of map where you have to work through large numbers of hell knights and ogres with only low-tier weapons like ssg and ng for the longest time - it gets tedious fast.

The problem in Quake is that the monsters are bulletsponges (and the low-tier weapons weak) so everything takes longer and can easily end up feeling like work. This works much better in Doom where the enemies generally have less health and the weapon balance is better. So 200 monsters in a map is not nearly as much of an indicator of difficulty and length as it is in Quake. 

I have to admit that when I was mapping I was mostly interested in the geometry and lighting. The monsters were an afterthought in most of my maps ... they were expected to be there, so I added them. That was the reality of the situation. :P 

When I play a Quake map these days, I am much more interested in the architecture and lighting than I am in the actual fighting with monsters. To me, the monsters are just there to give me something to do while I am wandering around admiring the brushwork.

Yeah, this is why I always play new quake releases on Easy, if I play them at all. And then I get annoyed because it STILL throws too much combat at me and doesn't give enough health. But people tend to think you're a pussy if you play on Easy, I guess.

When I see multiple engine limits exceeded and new bsp formats are required, then I can't play that map. It makes me wonder why the map was for Quake, it seems it should have been made for a different game.

This is a fallacy. It's not the monster count that breaks engine/bsp limits, it is the brushwork. Pretty brushwork and details have their price.

BSP2 format wasn't made because people wanted high monstercounts and grind gameplay, it was mostly because the maps got too detailed and because details and outdoor areas combined break the old quake limits (mostly clipnodes.)

You can have 666 monsters without needing a new BSP format, as warspasm proves. So broken limits != grind gameplay. 

actually my first map that required BSP2 only had like 50 monsters at the time. 

I've played a large map pack before. It was called unforgiven. So Beautiful... 

The consensus so far seems to be that bad monster placement ruins maps.

Playing through Zendar again and I'm struck by the precise care sock takes over his placement. For example an ogre that facing away from a lift but turns when it appears to hear it arrive.

Details like that are so small and easily missed, but add so much to a map.

I can still cheese your non-z-aiming Ogres though sock ;) 

I'm really tempted to set up a monetary bounty for a vertical aim algorithm that doesn't completely suck balls. 

The one from the inside3d tutorial... It can probably be improved but I've got all those other features to polish.

What's your beef with it? 

The one from the inside3d tutorial... It can probably be improved but I've got all those other features to polish.

What's your beef with it? 

Pile done Pom sea backside tree dee two tore we al.

Woes pour leaf quid itch?