Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Norfair Feedback Thread

2018-12-20T17:45:29+02:00

That's fair, and certainly will take that to heart.

Thank you, Anihilnine.

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 20 Dec 2018, 17:45

Re: Norfair Feedback Thread

2018-12-20T07:18:24+02:00

My point was not to remove all ramps and levels.

Just make it super obvious where the ramps and levels are. So stay by having a simple map design then use shading well.

Statistics: Posted by nine2 — 20 Dec 2018, 07:18

Re: Norfair Feedback Thread

2018-12-20T06:46:26+02:00

Macro textures are low resolution and are designed to be stretched across the map as giant transparent textures, i don't recommend using them outside of this or other niche circumstances and anyone paying attention will spot these textures like a hawk.

They go here.

Morax wrote:
Maybe the GPG editor is feeding false info as the ozonex one doesn't really communicate its features well all the time.

Can we stop blaming the FAF editor?

Statistics: Posted by biass — 20 Dec 2018, 06:46

Re: Norfair Feedback Thread

2018-12-19T17:57:55+02:00

Biass, that's perfectly good feedback, spare the "horrendous lava cracks in mountains" one.

I'm not sure what you mean by "evergreen" macro textures as I don't use any. Could you explain what you mean by that? Am I missing something? Maybe the GPG editor is feeding false info as the ozonex one doesn't really communicate its features well all the time.

Thanks for the points, though!

As for world machine, nahhhhh. You just need to post process it in the game editor so it doesn't warp things. I did this with Frithen, and am going to apply those lessons to next Norfair version.

I'm 100% confident Norfair can see a score raise by ThomasHiatt after I address all the concerns he and you outlined.

Thanks : )

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 19 Dec 2018, 17:57

Re: Norfair Feedback Thread

2018-12-19T15:28:14+02:00

I think it is more a case of lack of visual clarity when it comes to conveying information to the player that terrain - or at least height changes - exist in certain areas.
Before you start up some excuse about how biass is ranting on about aesthetics again, outside of myself and a few others hiding ramps and other terrain is that major point of contention that determines your map score for aesthetics - 25% of the final score that determines the frequency your map appears in the ladder pool. (This is for your information, followed by decal scaling, and then mountain appearance when it comes to most common judgements made by the team.)

I am going to fire off a few examples i found.

Here for example, the map fails to convey that the terrain changes because any lighting that would have otherwise shown that are blocked out by over-scaled erosion decals.
The terrain dips in height totalling more than the height of a Galactic Colossus in this area in particular.

It also happens here, although you cannot see the decals, what is conveyed to be a flat path from the top view actually has massive deviations in height both. I would also make a claim that for example Cybran t2 PD can fire down into that valley is because terraforming raises the gun high enough to shoot over the rest of the slope.

Despite all of this the real issue appears to be your lighting, because it is directed in such a way that it doesn't cast shadows/highlights over your slopes. This means even if the other issues were removed people would still not see the terrain properly.

I am not handing out freebies after reading this thread but here is my "corrections".

See now how where i discussed in the low left/top right corners clearly convey a dip in slope, The middle crossover lanes have a tiny bit of shadow cast into them to show the convex, The spawns also now how they're in a ditch also, and finally, how the valleys on the edges of the middle show they're in-between the ground and the raised platform. see also how the removal of the lava texture removes the horrendous cracking abomination and makes the map look infinitely better.

Some misc tips for next time however.
- Don't use macro textures for strata layers
- Change the actual macrotexture on your map to suit your theme because yours is currently evergreen.
- Lay off the worldmachine
- Set a starting height of around 50 or so so you have room to adjust water layers (instead of having water appear at 10)
- Don't overscale the 2 same god damn decals and throw them all across the map because i am going to have a stroke.

finally:

Morax wrote:
You guys do know that if you hold space bar and move your mouse you can see in 3d, right? I'm going to assume that's a yes...

This is not an excuse, it should not lie to the player to figure out information a map should convey, while in the middle of a ladder game.

Good luck on your next map.

Statistics: Posted by biass — 19 Dec 2018, 15:28

Re: Norfair Feedback Thread

2018-12-19T14:05:21+02:00

The point of terrain having ramps and e.t.c is to cause a disadvantage...

You guys do know that if you hold space bar and move your mouse you can see in 3d, right? I'm going to assume that's a yes...

Regardless, understood and I'll reduce ramps by a ton up and coming. They won't go 100% away, but a little, slight grade here and there should be fine.

I can't imagine all maps being completely flat... so boring and easy

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 19 Dec 2018, 14:05

Re: Norfair Feedback Thread

2018-12-19T10:38:30+02:00

I do think that it is valid in general. I would like every map to be flat and simple. I see no reason why Vya-3 could not just be 1 flat layer of terrain while still retaining the impassable cliffs and knolls which are surrounded by reclaim. Vya-3 is not a particularly bad map but I do clearly remember one occasion where one of the hills caused my opponents monkeylord to be permanently stuck allowing me to win an otherwise lost game. If it was a flat map that wouldn't happen. Syrtis is another example of a classic map that would be much better if it was flatter. Syrtis pretty much has 3 separate layers, but they are not flat at all. That just makes it difficult to place buildings and you have to place PD's very carefully to avoid having them shoot into the ground, it is such a problem that it is just generally accepted that you cannot make t2 PD if you are playing Cybran or Seraphim.

Statistics: Posted by ThomasHiatt — 19 Dec 2018, 10:38

Re: Norfair Feedback Thread

2018-12-19T03:08:55+02:00

Hey "bud" well you asked for feedback. It's up to you what you do with it.

Statistics: Posted by nine2 — 19 Dec 2018, 03:08

Re: Norfair Feedback Thread

2018-12-18T19:41:31+02:00

We are too busy playing the game, we dont want to spend Any time deciphering the map.

Anihilnine, that is part of the game, bud.... look at Vya-3 and you will see it's not all "flat and simple" terrain, nor are a lot of the maps.

I don't really think this is valid in general. It only applies to Norfair because some of the ramps are a tad extreme...

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 18 Dec 2018, 19:41

Re: Norfair Feedback Thread

2018-12-14T15:46:04+02:00

Yeah, so just a little history on Norfair:

About two years ago people were saying things like "ozonex editor is still years away and won't be worthwhile. " I didn't know him before, and honestly why bother when the editor was in the state it was?

On the FaF slack channel I asked a question about terrain manipulation, and ozonex told me about a new release that simplifies the process I wanted to complete.

Not long after, I started to play around with his editor a bit, and I think seeing what I could produce as a result motivated him and I to push things to the boundary. Over the next year I kept making tests where I played with different image formats for terrain height maps, and seeing how it imports into his editor; further, how his editor-made maps look in the actual game. You must remember that his tool uses the unity engine and kind of uses a mask to pretend its the Supp Comm one. You get a lot nicer looking picture in the editor than what's in the game...

So, after a long while of testing things, ozonex found a nice set of things to improve through this map. Norfair is an "R&D" piece, if you will, and it just happen to be something that can also be playable.

In time, I will definitely fix these issues and simplify. I wanted to see how far I can push the engine, and going forward maps like "Frithen" with a more flat and obvious gameplay area will be the standard.

I really do appreciate the feedback and hope to hear more. You guys help a lot!

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 14 Dec 2018, 15:46

Re: Norfair Feedback Thread

2018-12-14T13:28:26+02:00

What Thomas says makes a lot of sense to me. At the end of the day it can all be summarized as "simplify". We are too busy playing the game, we dont want to spend Any time deciphering the map.

I still think Norfair is ok. Just simplify the shit out of it. Keep the important landscape features and ditch the rest.

I dont think Loki is easy to understand. I get the map after some study, but i dont think its a goto example of how maps should be

Statistics: Posted by nine2 — 14 Dec 2018, 13:28

Re: Norfair Feedback Thread

2018-12-13T02:52:57+02:00

Thomas, that was f'ing perfect, man. Thank you for your detailed feedback and will address as many issues as I can!

With that said, I do not believe I will ever attempt to make a "lava" map again, as the colors and capability of the egine is just.... it's just not there. My intention was to make the "red water" do damage should a unit touch it, but the look and feel is just blah, so it will go away I suppose.

Again, thanks to everyone who replied, especially Thomas.

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 13 Dec 2018, 02:52

Re: Norfair Feedback Thread

2018-12-12T11:35:23+02:00

Just play on low settings so it looks like some deformed blue colour kappa

Statistics: Posted by Farmsletje — 12 Dec 2018, 11:35

Re: Norfair Feedback Thread

2018-12-12T11:25:40+02:00

I didn't like the map before, but with the texture changes it looks really nice now, except for that hideious red water, that just kills my eyes, and it's so intense that you just can't look away. would it be blue or green, while also not being that intense, map would be 10/10

Statistics: Posted by Platinumizer — 12 Dec 2018, 11:25

Re: Norfair Feedback Thread

2018-12-12T07:19:03+02:00

This is both a critique of Norfair and an explanation of how I judge maps and think they should be made.

Map Layout The number of mexes and their layout on the map as well as the amount of reclaim and its placement on the map. Is the map symmetrical and balanced? Other gameplay factors like plateaus, islands, water, etc.

I rate Norfair 10/10 in this category. Perfect number of mexes and perfect amount of reclaim. The location of expansions allows for variety in gameplay and strategies.

Aesthetics Is the map pleasing to look at? Do the textures and decals pop in and out at appropriate times? Do the textures and decals enhance the experience of playing the map or add unnecessary visual noise and clutter?

I rate Norfair 4/10 in this category. This is a pretty subjective category so I don't think it matters that much. I don't like the bright red textures and lava decals, and I think there is too much visual noise in the textures and decals on the terrain.

Terrain Are there unnecessary layers and elevation changes on the map? Do they: make it hard to place structures, cause pathfinding issues, allow units through unforseen pathways, block unit shots, mess with air units, or make it unclear where long range/artillary/missle units will be capable of shooting?

I believe that maps in this game must be constructed with distinct layers of perfectly flat terrain and if those layers are to be connected with eachother it must be done with clearly visible and well made ramps. If you put the game into cartographic view and look at maps like Loki, Regor VI Highlands, Abhor, Hollow, and Twin Rivers you can see they are made in this way. Because of this, these maps don't really have pathfinding issues, you have no trouble placing down your factories, you can clearly see where units can and cannot go, and you never have to worry about your units shooting into the ground. You never have to expend any effort fighting against the terrain. If you want to make some pretty mountains or whatever they must be separated from the playable area by a clear and steep edge, not blended into the map.

Norfair is not constructed in this way. It seems like the main priority is having lakes and big mountains that look nice and realistic and then having them gradually blend into the playable area of the map. That means there are no distinct layers of flat space on the map. Everything is some gradual slope that is leading into a giant mountain or a giant hole. This inevitably causes issues with gameplay. I'm sure you spent countless hours working on the terrain and trying to optimize it for gameplay, but it just isn't possible. The terrain must be in clear layers, that is just a reality of creating maps for this game. It isn't meant to be a work of art or realistic depiction of the world, it is just a game board.

I rate Norfair 5/10 in this category. Map not constructed as layers. Far too many elevation changes in the playable area of the map. A few places where units can sneak through that are unintentional or unclear. But despite these things the map is still pretty playable.

Textures Do the textures on the map clearly communicate useful information such as elevation changes, buildable/passable terrain, reclaim locations, and any other useful gameplay information?

I rate Norfair 6/10 in this category. It is not super clear where ramps are located and what terrain is passable or not, but it could be a lot worse. Patches of reclaim are not marked with textures. The reclaim overlay can help to locate mass reclaim, but I still think maps should mark it with a texture. Tree groups can usually not be seen with the reclaim overlay so they definitely need to be marked, but this is not relevant to Norfair as it has very few tree groups.

Some diagrams I made in mspaint:
https://imgur.com/zTf76vT
https://imgur.com/rWaCBet

Statistics: Posted by ThomasHiatt — 12 Dec 2018, 07:19