Let's hear it straight from the pros. What makes a bad DoD or DoD:S map? I just played dod_snow_somethingorother and dod_powcamp_d and both were *horrible*. Snowsomethingorother catered to sniper rifles and everyone who didn't have a whit of skill used one. Guys who were effective with rifles were able to dominate at all ranges. With the M1, I was able to take out ineffective snipers, and then able to get in behind their spawn and drill them as they spawned... which brings me to dod_wowbadcamp_f. I was able to see the german team spawn directly across from me while I spawned, from my spawn. They set up an Mg42 in their spawn and were hosing us down in our spawn, from their spawn. I worked my way up there, took out their Mg42, and set it up facing into their spawn. I took out three spawn waves, got warned, tked, and then banned.

Now, I pose it to you, the mappers of this community: What do you do about preventing spawn camping in your maps for DoD:S? What would you like to see added to a mapper's capabilities to help with this? What creative new ways have you thought of to deal with people who insist on dropping people before they hit the ground? Should there be some kind of standard? My question about what spawn camping is on bad maps is for another thread, but has some relevance here. I would like to see some discussion about what experienced mappers have experimented with in DoD:S to prevent the above situations. Newer mappers could use the input, I think. The CS mindset needs to go. Spawns need to be protected.

Interesting question.

Problem, I've played a few maps (I'm not going to mention them as I don't want the mappers themselves to feel bad as I'm rpetty sure they're on here), but two stick out to be the worst. One was a remake of an older map, however, there was no excitment in the map itself and it looked quite drab. Same building texture over and over. Looked boring and wasn't intereting at all.

Another map, was made entirly out of HL2 textures. Was a small bland map with one big choke point and that was it. Horrible experience, and too linear...

Just my opinion.

To name a few things

Linear gameplay wherein you can only go one way

HUGE OPEN SPACES where it's just a sniperville, with exception to beach maps.

Confusing gameplay (dod_snowbattlefield and dod_omaha_v1) where there are TOO many ways to go, or no real direction.

Boring visuals.

Many more on the way.

As for spawn protection, in my old maps I would put an MG in a black window, or just make it completely impassable.

on topic of the title:
bad fps. its sad when mappers do not make an effort to improve fps in their map. sometimes i can easily browse through a map, and point of ways to fix so many fps problems.
there should also be some form of planned gameplay. not just making some terrain and planting down random houses.

onto the question:
for my maps, i make usually at least 3 spawn exits. I avoid making them all go to the same path as well. So say, one will be in the front, one on the left, and one to the back. So if one exit is to be camped, the other 2 can easily be used. I also make the viewpaths to the spawn exits small, at least for one of them, so long range weapons cannot take advantage. A very safe exit should be placed in all maps, and the other exits would be "more dangerous" but may also lead the player into the battle quicker. so you would be taking a risk to take the closer exits. get what im saying?

There were a lot of "instant" dod:source maps released a few weeks after dod:source came out and 90% were pure crap and almost all were done like this:

1) Use a terrain generator and make a big open layout
2) Place a few buildings and trees in the map
3) Put spawns and flags
4) Release it w/o testing

All of them have nothing for spawn protection. Good spawn protection is three fold:

1) Direct (rifle) fire cannot hit a spawn point on initialization of the individual spawn points
2) The enemy cannot physically get into the spawn area
3) There are mutiple routes out

1 can be handled by performing LOS (line of sight) testing
2 can be handled by either map design and/or hurts, pushes, and verbal warnings. We should actually all decide on a certain standard so as maps come out in the future EVERYONE clearly undertands "There's the spawn and I'm going to die if I get too close"
3 is the mappers task

aside from the crap maps that are obviously bad, I think linear maps with no choices are the worst kind. I really dislike playing maps like kalt, flash, etc, whereas 2 of my favorite pub and clan maps are anzio and railroad2.

<IMO>

It just seems like there has to be barrier that the spawning team has to go up and over. Even though this gets used a lot, it's tried and tested. The position of the first flag can be iimportant, as well. I think it's a good idea to make an alternate way out of spawn, especially if the 'main' exit of spawn is more exposed. But it is true, there is no reason to make a map that doesn't have protected spawns, there's really nothing more annoying.

I know some people have said linear gameplay makes a map bad, I'm not sure if I agree with that, look at dod_hobofire, it was about as linear as it gets and was one of the most fun maps out there to play. Still is. Personally I loved heutau back in the day too. I guess it could be a personal preference thing too, I think it just depends how well made the map is.

Some other stuff, looks, a map doesn't always have to just be beautiful, but as said above, repetative visuals get boring. When there's not a lot of action, when the conflict in a map is drawn out and sporadic, instead of lots of fighting condensed in a few areas. I think what makes a map good is usually the gameplay, what makes it great is all the other details (except in a few cases where the gameplay is just amazing).

Fuzzdad pretty much says it all about spawncamping.

*I would disagree with hobofire being linear. Each side had a flank to move around the middle area*

what makes a bad map? people just not caring or considering how people will play on their maps. You just never know what people will do with a tank sitting in a road. It could lead to access to areas you never would have thought you can get to. You just have to playtest, thats all i can reiterate. A playtest of 2 or 3 times will usually result in a better product.

Release, update, post a big thread saying post bugs here please, thanks.

i peronally was once looking for a playerclip brush with a modificator "axis" or "allies". so if you try to pass a playerclip with the axis modificator and you're on allies team, you can't get through.
think of it as a spam filter ;)

i couldn't believe there is none :P
simple thing. put it up/around spawn and only your team can enter. problem solved.


i'm also fine with that hurt-thing. i always liked the automatic mg's in the windows..

having a voice saying something would be agood idea. as said. making it a standard, so people will remember in their gameplay...
maybe you should put a wounded soldier near spawnentrance who sais: "don't go there mate" :P

Most maps so far have been made by a new range of mappers, not the old DoD Gold mappers.

These new mappers have little knowledge of the game they are mapping for. Not a problem really, they will get better at mapping for DoS:S so we should encourage them when they release a map instead of making comments about how crap they all are.

Remember ... you where a newbie mapper once and 90% of your first maps were crap.

I do believe the maps have had some sort of testing but that would have been with a few of their mates and they would have probably just said the map roxs.

The problem is that whatever amount of attention the brand new mapper will give to his first map, it'll never be as good as his second, itself never as good as the third and so on and so forth.

The problem is the urge to get something out, just because you, the mapper, feels something is good. It's good because it's the first time you do it, not because players are gonna like it. Or not necessarily.

Good maps, whether you're a brand new mapper or a very experienced one, will come with the will to spend as much time on them as is needed.

Being a brand new mapper, I want to spend that time. Others do too, but certain mappers started in August and are already working on their 3rd map....

With that said, time spent is not necessarily a proof of a good map.

Well i realy wouldnt know but from a bot prespctive like Sturmbot it doesnt like:

1 Some models that are not soild objects like Vehicles

2 Crazy doors that open and close too quickly(less then 15 secs from open to close

3 Ladders less the 1cm in height

4 Complex spawn areas(dont add/doors/ladders/windows to jump from)/ramped spawns in the open allways work better

Apart from those it loves everything specially multple objectives

If you wanna use those very small guidelines thats great because it helps others too thanks

Originally posted by FuzzDad
There were a lot of "instant" dod:source maps released a few weeks after dod:source came out and 90% were pure crap and almost all were done like this:

1) Use a terrain generator and make a big open layout


There are terrain generators??? :eek: :D

But seriousley, I find what makes a good map is playability.
people are willing to forgive detail to a certain degree if its a fun map, well-balanced and flows really well.

There really is no excuse for not having adequate spawn protection, on my Liberer map I have a hurt entity on the beach to prevent serious foul play and the allies spawns are behind objects or in areas of cover, the axis have an object that you cant get in from and soon will have a 2nd passage out to prevent that exit being covered.

What makes a great map is a combilation of gameplay, lighting, detail, atmosphere and for the VERY brave and skilled mappers historic accuracy.