No announcement yet.


  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts


    edit: Thank L4Y Duke for the new name of my map
    Edit: I cant get the new pics up photobucket is down for the day.

    This is version 1.0 beta

    I still have work a lot of work to do to the map

    I dont have a video opener yet but i will in the updates

    Here is the Download link both the map and readme are there so download both

    i want to get your guys thoughts and suggestions on this map im making its got a long way to go but i wanted to show you some pics of the base im building.

    If there is anything that you think i should change or take out let me know remember that it is not done yet i still have stuff to add to it

    Edit : here are the new pics
    Edit : here is the new link setup i have to move the bases back some and here is a pic of my terrain

    -Reduce the number of turrets you're sporting there. 4-8 is plenty. Even on a 32p map, 4 people in turrets is a quarter of your team.
    -Increase options for defenders getting around the base. Having lots of turrets is not useful if you can't get to them quickly and efficiently. It looks like you're relying on having people walk around half the structure and up three floors of ramps just to get to the top level of their own base. That is bad.


      ok thank you for the suggestion im am going to add elevators to the base just havent got that far yet

      I thought i might have to many turrets but i wasnt sure

      thank you for your suggestion and reply


        It's... very well defended.

        Look at some regular UT maps. They both have less turrets (like Wail said), and less vehicles. 3 Cicadas, 4 Raptors? A slew of light vehicles on the outside, and I won't even try to guess exactly how many Goliaths you have in there.

        The point of a large base is not to get an entire 16p team in vehicles at the very start of the map. I realize you're probably going for a large map with this setup, but scarcity of vehicles is an important point in any Ons map.

        Goliaths are slow, good defenders, and can house 2 players. One of these will nearly always be enough.

        Mantas and Scorpions are excellent scout/transport vehicles. They are mainly good for getting an initial node, or getting somewhere fast. You should only have a few of these.

        Raptors and Cicadas should not be so numerously splayed around the base so your entire team can start flying at the very beginning of the game! I like your 'takeoff' design for the vehicles at the top, but 2 raptors and a Cicada (or vice versa, but the Raptor is more useful) sould be very sufficient.

        About mobility (which Wail also addressed): put in some jump pads or teleports, possibly from ground to roof level. They are more accessible, faster, and simpler (design-wise) than lifts or elevators. You can add elevators too but they generally are a bad idea for such a large base, since players will be swarming the area trying to get around initially and need something more accessible than lifts (which can only carry a few players at a time, while others wait for it to come back down).

        Other than that, looks good. I like the parking-garage-style kind of thrown-together look of it. Does well with the atmospere of the level, from what I can see of it. Just out of curiosity: can Raptors/Cicadas attack the PowerCore from the air, through that 'skylight' thing, or is there glass/a force field/other on top of it?


          that is a wiremesh roof with a full blocking volume on it the only way is to attack it from the three openings on the sides "thats if the players are good at aiming"

          i took out most of the turrets and left 8 on the base 4 on the roof and 4 on the second level

          I will put in telepoters to the roof and first floor i dont want any easy way to the power core level

          I will decrease the amount of vehicles that are at the base this is my first ons map so im testing the ground with this one.


            well, if the vehicles are for debug/testing purposes, I'd just recommend putting one of each in a big line beside the base, then removing them once you have the map the way you like it.

            16 turrets may still be a bit much- keep in mind, the ones on the roof and on the first level are tactically the best for a good range of vision, depending on whether the target is ground level or in the air.

            The blocking volume does have bBlockZeroExtentTraces set to true (or alternatively, is a HitScanBlockingVolume), right? It may seem obvious but I've made the mistake before.


              yes i set the bBlockZeroExtentTraces to True i built other maps for fun and learned the hard way about that part of the volume


                ok im going to take some more screen shots in side the game to show you the changes that you suggested it will take a little while i have to up load them to imageshack

                It will be awhile im have a problem with one of the jump pad destinations

                in pic one is that a good link setup im not sure if it is or if i have to many nodes


                  No, it's a horrible link setup! The main points to remember:
                  1. Each core must be linked to AT LEAST 2 nodes.
                  2. There must be no "choke points" while playing the game - make sure that each team always has at least 2 nodes they can attack.
                  3. Make sure there are no useless nodes - that is, the path from one core to another should not be unequal - if by following one path you can get to the core by taking 4 nodes, the other paths can't take 2 nor 7 nodes to the core. In your setup, the links 5, 1, 2 and 3 are useless - no one will ever care to take them, unless there is something blocking the 4 - 7 - 8 path or those extra nodes give you something really powerful.


                    1. Consider Torlan. Smaller map, I know, but it seems to use the one node coming from each core very well. You may want to move it closer to the core, though.

                    2. I have to agree here. That node in the middle of your map is a terrible strategic point. If you can't/really don't want to change it, at least make sure that it doesn't possess any uber-leet-powerful vehicles like a shock tank or levi. A few Mantas/scorpions should be all, so the controlling team doesn't have an insane advantage when they take that node.

                    3. Consider Torlan again. There is a direct path using 3 nodes to get to the core, but there is another path using 4 nodes that has some goliaths and mantas. It also provides a 'back door' kind of route if the other team is dominating the central path, but neglecting the outer one.

                    And seeing the number of servers completely obsessed with Torlan, I'll say it did something right...


                      Originally posted by Shivan Hunter View Post
                      And seeing the number of servers completely obsessed with Torlan, I'll say it did something right...
                      Then again, Torlan is the map with the most user remakes...

                      Anyway, I believe that the routes can in fact be uneven, if they're easier to get. For instance, an incredibly short 1-node route could be done well if it is incredibly vulnerable to attack, i.e. in the open, in plain sight and difficult to defend, with an alternate longer route which is easier to defend.


                        1. No, that link setup is very awful too! If it only had an extra node at each side, then it would play well. Now you choke and choke at the first node.
                        3. Again not a good setup. Those nodes are good as support nodes, but all you can isolate with Goliath nodes is one point. The opposite is better, 2 Goliath nodes, yet if you manage to take out that node then the enemy will choke to death anyway.

                        Yes, Torlan did something right, but that's probably not the link setup
                        And yes, L4Y Duke is right. You can, say, make a direct path that has 4 nodes and goes a straight line from core to core and another path that has only two points but they are on absolutely opposite sides of the map. This formation is very good for Torlan too - both cores connect to Goliath nodes, they connect together, and the middle three nodes linearly go from core to core.


                          I think the map is looking better already with the changes you have made so far. It looks like you've reduced the number of turrets to a somewhat reasonable number (I think 6 would be better, but it really isn't a huge issue), and reconsidered the amount of firepower you're placing at the base in general. That's good.

                          As for node setup, clearly some people have some strong ideas about node setups here. Personally, I think node setup can't be said to be good or bad without also looking at terrain setup. UT2004 Torlan, with its single primary setup, is pretty bad, as it basically becomes a stalemate fighting for that last primary node. UT3 Torlan, with two extra nodes to make a dual primary setup, is also bad, because neither primary node is particularly defensible from the base. UT2004 Dawn is good, because it has a dual primary setup with two primary nodes, one that is fairly easy to defend and another that is more difficult to defend. The way UT2004's Dawn has the middle nodes connected also makes for interesting choices between cutting off the enemy's middle node or attacking the enemy's primary node.

                          I personally feel that dual primary maps are the way to go, but there are no absolute good or bad link setups without considering map terrain. One thing that I think is useful to consider when thinking about how to make one node more easily defended than another is to remember that you can always add spur nodes (nodes that are connected to only one core). These can't ever be attacked, so they can serve as a second "base" from which to stage attacks - and it is almost always easier to retake a primary node if you can approach it from more than one angle.


                            Precisely. Length of routes node-wise doesn't matter, so long as length of routes time-wise is roughly equal. Whether the time is increased by having better defended nodes, nodes spread further apart or nodes with restricted access (say if you had to take a path that spiraled up a hill instead of just going straight up) is up to you.

                            Oh, and don't make one-node paths. Those tend to be abused. One-node paths are for one-node maps.


                              ok i kept the nodes but changed there spots on the map and changed the link setup i hope this is going to be ok with everyone i will post a screen shot once i get it uploaded

                              it will be a few i have to redo the road nodes to the changed spots and ground levels