Do you like new DOTF?

Do you like new DOTF?

  • Yes

    Votes: 50 39.4%
  • No

    Votes: 50 39.4%
  • Not sure yet

    Votes: 27 21.3%

  • Total voters
    127

GoodOl'Ben

Nerd
Donator
Movie Battles II Team Retired
Posts
1,116
Likes
1,656
I am aware of what you're speaking of but that method is a bandaid style fix that we could do in the mean time and reConfigured suggested it last week or so as well. However to do it properly I believe that the central area of the throne room needs to be decreased slightly to remove some of the open space and making cover more prominent. Doing this would also bring the outer pillars inwards slightly to make them more prominent cover which involves modifying the central pillars of foyer and the side doors as well. After modifying the pillars we would bring the raised area outwards to add extra emphasis to the border of the capture area. You really want to be careful about making it as big as it would be without modifying the throne area. That is just way too big.
Sounds like a good direction! Just don't burn yourself out :D
 
Posts
341
Likes
184
Putting my two cents in as I just played it today.

It's definently not better than the old one. I don't like king of the hill obj.
I also just don't really like how much bigger it is. It's so much harder to defend an obj when its king of the hill instead of a hacking terminal.

This may sound weird too, but I don't like how 'complex' it looks. There's too much design and stuff going on for me. Just keep it simple!

Edit:
Also I do like how pit was removed. It served absolutely no purpose to actual gameplay aside from people who wanted to roleplay.
I'm 50/50 with the whole gen part of the map. It's cool but it doesn't do much except for those obj terminals and people hiding for timewaste.

The problem with this map is that if the imperials go to gen side and the main side is breached (the long hallway) then there's nothing the imps can do to beat the rebs to obj. multiple times have I lost on imps due to half the team being in gen and not having any time to catch up to rebs taking the obj.
 
Last edited:
Posts
1
Likes
0
I think the new one is definitely prettier, and I like the flanking on the hallway to the throne. I personally never had any FPS problems on the old dotf but if other people did then that's a valid issue. I like how there's more open space in a number of areas, namely throne. I like the smaller, curvier catwalks in gen.

I dislike the changes to side in general and the removal of catwalks.

Simply put, the rebs can flank more quickly and easily now. Firstly, the hallway from Imp spawn to gen either seems longer (?) or the time before the gen door opens seems shortened (?). Even if I spawn right by the side door and book it there immediately I always leave the side door just as the rebs' door opens. This makes "defending side" really a moot point. The rebs, from the layout and the timing, have the advantage when it comes to defending side. Mostly what I've seen happen is that the imps will get held up outside of the door as one person goes and does the hacking; either the Imps will then shitstomp through the rebs and run into hangar or the Imps will get their shit pushed in and rebs will cruise on over to T junc and flank. The imps actually preventing the rebs from hacking seems very rare to me. I feel like this sets the Imps up for a loss most of the time because of how easy it makes hacking side, flanking, and utterly decimating the T-junc defenders. Because throne can't be held except by sheer numbers (which can't be done except from the outset because main defenders will get crushed by flankers and because side defenders can't get to throne before rebs can) the Imperial options to defend seem limited.

I'm not complaining about the ability to flank but the ease of it. The distance from hangar to pit combined with Imps always getting into gen before rebs in the previous dotf gave the Imps a valuable tool in that they could use attrition to hold off the rebs. A smaller Imperial force could hold off a large Rebel force simply by being a pain in the ass and positioning itself throughout the generator. They'd have a headstart on getting into gen so they could actually position themselves throughout it. Additionally, even if you didn't actually keep the rebs from successfully hacking, you would be enough of a speed bump that main could either be cleaned up or the defenders in T junc could fall back. As I said before, this leads to Rebs being able to flank more quickly and more easily now.

The ONLY people who go into the gen catwalks now are Mandos looking to snipe and Jedi looking to hunt the Mandos down to get kills. There is no reason to actually go into gen proper, especially because the Imperials cannot get into the generator before the rebels in any real capacity; gen combat is limited to the entry T and the hacking platform with only HONORABLE DUELS occasionally straying out before someone gets sniped. Fights in gen were some of my favorite parts about dotf because of the truly 3D nature of the combat. No, the game isn't 2D or isometric, but most combat is you moving along a flat plane: Gen and the hangar/imp spawn catwalk gave people a versatile tool that was, simply put, a fuckton of fun.

The decision to make throne a King of the Hill rather than Hack the Terminal is a moot one; I don't have a strong opinion of either. However, I dislike the ease with which Rebs can simply cruise through with little to no resistance from the Imps. Throne being a brutal oppressive chokepoint that could only be accessed by siege was part of what made it fun. I completely see WHY it was chosen to make that change (because when it wasn't fun it was terrible), but I disagree about the manner it went about. I like that rebs can fight in a throne that is completely open, but I also dislike the Imps' inability to defend it (both due to their inability to really defend side AND throne, and due to how quickly the rebs can just flood throne).

From reading your posts, Mace, and the dev diary you posted, I get the feeling (and I could be wrong here) that a number of changes were made to get rid of the things that, much like throne sieges, were terrible and oppressive to a number of people when they didn't work... yet were fun and memorable to a number of people when they did work. I don't disagree with smoothing out kinks and bumps, but sometimes those kinks and bumps should remain because they're what makes things fun. A simple, streamlined and efficient map is... Boring. There should be struggles and fuckups and places in the map that are pains in the ass because that's what makes the game fun. I feel there should be places in a map where things aren't guaranteed to go your way because those places are often where the fun is had. Overcoming the kinks and bumps, as a player, or using them to your advantage, is part of the fun. Yeah, rebs can easily hack now and that makes things easy and streamlined for them... But I don't have fun or feel a sense of accomplishment (Or even that I'm really aiding my team) when I hack now.

If I were able to wiggle my magic nerd wand and change dotf, I would bring back catwalk, bring back pit (I like the curvier, slimmer gen catwalks in gen proper, I'd keep those), and change how access to throne is done. The attached image shows the idea. Pit as before is brought back; the first two terminals open the blue doors allowing the rebs easier movement and the final terminal opens the green doors. Throne has three doors to it, allowing both for rebs to invade an open space and for imps to actually defend it; the doors should have less health than old dotf throne door did, maybe half as much. Doors with the red Xs can have their terminals destroyed to open them. Thus, rebs can either go for a full side hack and have throne completely fucking open, or they can rush main and have a prolonged siege; if they're smart they'll take their time and blast open all five doors... Or maybe they're dumb as bricks and just run in a straight line towards the deka.
 

Attachments

  • DotF idea.png
    DotF idea.png
    25.1 KB · Views: 227

MaceMadunusus

Level Designer
Donator
Movie Battles II Team
Posts
1,888
Likes
2,570
I don't believe you are wrong on some of your points and I thank you for the in depth feedback that is not at all angry/rage filled.

I don't think I would go towards the layout you posted for several reasons. One in particular being that I do not want to go back to the whole locked throne idea.

Like I said in earlier posts I do want to bring some of the verticality back into the main hangar and I think I have decided to go with the second option I was thinking of. I had two, one that involved making a new (and less visually intrusive) catwalk that would be destroyed party way through the round by a shot down/rogue n1 or droid starfighter to prevent some of the long camping sessions. While also having some left over N1 starfighters in the hangar. The second option being (even though not entirely movie accurate it is more accurate than catwalk) where we add the queens nubian ship in the center with multiple ways to get on top of it with gunners and jedi/sith. As well as additional N1s scattered around.

I am leaning far more towards the second option as it has a lot more benefits than adding a catwalk back. Such as adding more cover to the generally pretty barren hangar.

I do want to make more adjustments to gen. I think I am going to make the walkways slightly wider than they are now. I would like to see some other changes to the entryway into side to make it more defensible with a smaller crew but I have been focusing on other things first. Travel time for imperials into generator from spawn though is definitely quicker than before. They have more time to setup than they did previously. So that isn't exactly something isolated to the new DOTF.

I do also want to adjust the objective area more as I said in the past as I do agree that it is harder for imperials to defend than it should be.

I have also been considering flipping both side routes (more complicated than it sounds) to possibly allow the use of the door in imp spawn again making for shorter travel times for imps from gen to obj.

I'll make/update the DOTF dev diary as I have some more concrete changes done. Iterative process, we all knew before hand this wasn't going to be perfect.

And once again I thank you for good feedback and criticism. I wish more people would do what you just did.
 
Posts
10
Likes
13
Hey @MaceMadunusus, here is my feedback:

I appreciate the effort you put into rework, but in my opinion the map doesn't play well in current iteration.
I think the main issues are:
1. The whole generator room is pretty but useless set piece. There is no fighting there because there is nothing to fight over.
2. The whole left side route (courtyard) is out of the way and unused.
3. If Rebs breach T-Junction, the Imp forces in the side / gen area are cut off and cannot retreat to defend throne.
4. Main corridor still often turns into stalemate situation.
(Yes, the old DotF shared some of those problems, but the new version was supposed to fix them.)
There are also a lot of minor problems, which don't affect the gameplay much and they can be ironed out easily, so I won't go into them now.

Here is rough idea how I would change the layout to fix those main problems.
A. Push consoles further into gen and make the gen a part of right side route.
B. Move beautiful courtyard above Fed spawn to create additional route to Throne (locked by the consoles from Rebs).
C. Add exterior balkony area around main corridor and along the left side to make combat more dynamic and allow for small flanking maneuvers. (Accessible by breaking windows.)
D. Remove some less used corridors to make map a bit smaller.
4cNL0mj.png
 
Last edited:
Posts
341
Likes
184
I suggest keeping DOTF the same, maybe simplifying the design a bit, but change one thing.

MAKE THE OBJ NOT KING OF THE HILL PLS.
 

Bob-Billy

KotOR Mapper & Cultist
Movie Battles II Team
Posts
375
Likes
1,232
I got used to the new dotf , i've also found my new catwalk (climbing the walls to the top of the statue)
 

MaceMadunusus

Level Designer
Donator
Movie Battles II Team
Posts
1,888
Likes
2,570
@anomer Thanks for the feedback!

I have been considering some of what you mentioned for a bit now. @StarWarsGeek suggested moving the left courtyard to a similar position. However If I am going to do that It would have to be fairly different from yours. Even though the VIS blocker is alright at that spot, it won't be able to support having both of those doors open into hangar. Performance would tank drastically having it in that particular spot. I do want to in some way bring back the escape from fed for imperials. At the same time though, remember it is important that if part of the team doesn't do their job (defending main), it isn't exactly fair to the rebel team if imps can safely travel across 3/4ths of the map and get back to defend in time, where as rebels only had to travel 1/4th. If there is bad communication, bad awareness/gamesense, or simply that an imperial is completely out of position (ive seen people battling in gen at 2 minutes then whine they couldn't get back fast enough to defend once they got the notification). An the imperial team deserves to lose at that point.

I cannot do the balcony suggestion for main. It has been suggested god knows how many times and the issues with doing that are still the same. The biggest most obvious one being: Performance. It would be again way worse doing this and is a battle I am constantly having to face. If I had to open this area up I would have to add a lot of detail outside that isn't already there on top of what is being drawn inside plus the fact that it extends past the main corridors node which essentially means you're essentially drawing 4 separate nodes with nothing to block it. Performance is going to be REALLY bad. Secondly, doing that removes the choke point in main that while it does have stalemates it was one of the places that was designed to do that. The new map only made it easier for rebels to push forward or not get trapped in the corner as easily which was exactly the goal. If we weaken the choke point anywhere near the level you are suggesting the map is simply going to fall apart. There will be no reason to go side at all, no reason to defend main, and the only real tactic would be to defend throne which is currently more difficult than it should be. Basically doing this actually makes more problems and solves almost nothing. It also doesn't make a lot of sense to have a route on the left side that just suddenly ends and your only exit is breaking through a window. The further part of left side also makes it fairly difficult to combat the height issues in the two areas.

For gen, cutting out the side route there and shifting it towards hangar is also a massive performance concern. Having that little buffer area between throne and hangar allows me to cull out way more detail than I otherwise would be able to. Doing this change would result in much more of the generator room being visible with the hangar doors open. Performance is going to be worse. So instead of viewing say 30% of the generator room at any given time in hangar like you are now, you are viewing closer to 60-75% with this change. It would also be pretty hard to make the side walkway that heads towards imp spawn not a complete death tap for non force users while maintaining the designs from the movie. I feel like this would make the route completely unviable for a lot of classes because of the combination of force users having so much power in this area, as well as snipers having many more viewpoints and positions to hide. Moving the objective farther in is something we can try, but nothing I want to try quite yet.

T-Junction changes don't make a lot of sense in the way that there is remnants of the right side route and the addition of a door into the foyer area. That part just won't work because of the geometry in the area. I am also once again concerned about performance problems and lessening of the choke point on the left side route side of t-junction.

Lastly, the secondary imperial spawns are missing entirely from this. They are needed as I am not making imperials spawn on the control point again like in the old DOTF.

MAKE THE OBJ NOT KING OF THE HILL PLS.

King of the Hill OBJ is still one of the things I am the happiest with regarding the new design. It does need changes mentioned here though: Do you like new DOTF? As well as some bug fixes.
 
Posts
10
Likes
13
Sound arguments. As I said - it was just rough sketch, it would need polish and more balance-related design (cover, etc.) to work. But I still think the map needs some major layout changes.

I'm IT myself and I would love to catch you on Skype or Discord and talk about this stuff in more detail sometime in the future (right now I'm frankly terribly overworked, between job and university). I'm especially interested in the performance concerns. I'm sure they are valid, but I'm curious what is their source - after all this is not exactly Star Citizen and the hardware advanced incredibly. So I guess engine limitations. Is it something that OpenJK or MB2 team could solve going further?
 

MaceMadunusus

Level Designer
Donator
Movie Battles II Team
Posts
1,888
Likes
2,570
I agree the map needs some layout changes still. Currently taking a small break so my head doesn't fry looking at the same map again then I will be doing some more things and posting publicly. There are some things I want to get done before doing some of the layout changes.

And yeah the performance problems is almost entirely engine limitations. Modern engines like Star Citizen use things like hierarchical LODs, Occlusion Culling, asynchronous stream loading, etc. None of which we have access to in this engine and isn't something OpenJK can do easily because it requires a crap ton of work and knowledge (Which sorry the OpenJK guys do not have). ID Tech 3, which JKA is based off of, uses something called VIS. You can read about the process here: id Tech 3 Optimization as that gives a pretty good overview. However, it also isn't perfect. It does bug out a lot, having weird issues, and frequently likes to draw 1-2 zones more than it needs to. When you get to a map like DOTF, things are a lot more complicated than the little images they give you.

Here is what DOTFs portals currently look like on top of its structural hull. It isn't perfectly what I want it but I was having a good number of issues getting it to cooperate with what I was trying to do. So still trying to improve it further.

1d91d81c35c2b963359394b268589e87.png
 

eezstreet

Movie Battles II Team Retired
Posts
242
Likes
299
And yeah the performance problems is almost entirely engine limitations. Modern engines like Star Citizen use things like hierarchical LODs, Occlusion Culling, asynchronous stream loading, etc. None of which we have access to in this engine and isn't something OpenJK can do easily because it requires a crap ton of work and knowledge (Which sorry the OpenJK guys do not have). ID Tech 3, which JKA is based off of, uses something called VIS. You can read about the process here: id Tech 3 Optimization as that gives a pretty good overview. However, it also isn't perfect. It does bug out a lot, having weird issues, and frequently likes to draw 1-2 zones more than it needs to. When you get to a map like DOTF, things are a lot more complicated than the little images they give you.

The OpenJK team wouldn't take up a request to make a new PVS system, because:
  • It falls outside the scope of the project. Not only would many of the things you mentioned require editing q3map2, they fall outside the declared scope of the project, which is more or less strictly to fix bugs and improve compatibility (or at most, very very minor usability improvements, like making damage of weapons editable in weapons.dat)
  • Things like asynchronous stream loading would break compatibility with mods, which is something that OpenJK is trying not to do.
  • Changes to the system of potentially visible sets may cause network desynchronization, because the visibility system is intertwined with networking entities in the snapshot. A player is only networked data about entities in their visibility.
Additionally I feel the need to correct a few minor mistakes in your post:
  • The term "VIS" is not an acronym and the game does not use a system called "VIS". What you are referring to is the "vis" stage of the q3map2 compiler, which is responsible for generating "potentially visible sets" (PVS) which link up to polygons in the "binary space partitioned" (BSP) tree.
  • PVS is a form of occlusion culling, which you claim the engine does not do.
  • OpenJK team does have knowledge ;)
 

MaceMadunusus

Level Designer
Donator
Movie Battles II Team
Posts
1,888
Likes
2,570
The term "VIS" is not an acronym and the game does not use a system called "VIS". What you are referring to is the "vis" stage of the q3map2 compiler, which is responsible for generating "potentially visible sets" (PVS) which link up to polygons in the "binary space partitioned" (BSP) tree.
  • PVS is a form of occlusion culling, which you claim the engine does not do.
  • OpenJK team does have knowledge ;)
  • PVS is just a table of information. VIS (short for visibility) is the process of creating that information (as you said), and using that information later on in the engine to show/hide areas. PVS is just the format it is stored in and read from. VISibility is a term that works for describing to general community and goes over the whole system/process and the term is from the compiler itself. And the overarching term for pretty much every engine. There is no need for a correction here.
  • PVS is a form of occlusion culling yes but not the process used by modern engines generally (UE4 uses PVV instead of PVS for example for its simple culling). The term Occlusion Culling hasn't been used to describe this type system for a long time. While it is still used, the term is used now for view frustrum culling, or dynamic occlusion culling as a way of shortening the two terms for users. You could also argue that the system JKA uses isn't occlusion culling because it does not use the actual view of the camera to determine what to occlude. Just the position and rotation. Regardless, my term was accurate to modern specifications.
  • Not a single person in the OpenJK team has ever done this (created an occlusion culling system) professionally and almost all of the rendering code has been copied from others work from other quake 3 engine mods. I have also seen many OpenJK members, yourself included, claim to understand how VIS works telling me I don't know what I am talking about, then I prove you otherwise with screenshots and video. I'm sorry you don't.
Sometimes eez, you just need to shut up.
 
Last edited:

eezstreet

Movie Battles II Team Retired
Posts
242
Likes
299
  • PVS is just a table of information. VIS (short for visibility) is the process of creating that information (as you said), and using that information later on in the engine to show/hide areas. PVS is just the format it is stored in and read from. VISibility is a term that works for describing to general community and goes over the whole system/process and the term is from the compiler itself. And the overarching term for pretty much every engine. There is no need for a correction here.
Your exact wording, "ID Tech 3, which JKA is based off of, uses something called VIS" makes it sound as though it used a special system, when in fact, as you say now, every engine does this, which bore correcting.

  • PVS is a form of occlusion culling yes but not the process used by modern engines generally (UE4 uses PVV instead of PVS for example for its simple culling). The term Occlusion Culling hasn't been used to describe this type system for a long time. While it is still used, the term is used now for view frustrum culling, or dynamic occlusion culling as a way of shortening the two terms for users. You could also argue that the system JKA uses isn't occlusion culling because it does not use the actual view of the camera to determine what to occlude. Just the position and rotation. Regardless, my term was accurate to modern specifications.
You do realize that JKA does do view frustrum culling, right? So it still does do occlusion culling according to your odd definition of the term.

Furthermore, the second sentence of the Wikipedia definition of PVS, which I linked before reads:
This is a form of occlusion culling, whereby a candidate set of potentially visible polygons are pre-computed, then indexed at run-time in order to quickly obtain an estimate of the visible geometry.

It also does distance culling, which is a form of occlusion culling and used by a lot of recent games as well. It doesn't do anything fancy, like say, this, but that's understandable considering that many of these occlusion methods (yes, even Unreal's) are totally proprietary.

  • Not a single person in the OpenJK team has ever done this (created an occlusion culling system) professionally and almost all of the rendering code has been copied from others work from other quake 3 engine mods. I have also seen many OpenJK members, yourself included, claim to understand how VIS works telling me I don't know what I am talking about, then I prove you otherwise with screenshots and video. I'm sorry you don't.
Sometimes eez, you just need to shut up.
If you're going to ad hominem an entire group of people, I suggest you actually look up who you're talking about. Xycaleth, who is working on rend2, was working on driver code for video cards...
 

Defiant

Nerd
Project Leader
Movie Battles II Team
Code Leader
Posts
1,007
Likes
1,451
Who am I attacking in this thread? I'm simply pointing out what he's getting wrong.
I didn't say you were. Neither is Mace attacking anyone that I can see? Merely observing that what you are accusing Mace of doing is something you do an awful lot of.

Anyway, no need to derail this thread. Thanks.
 

eezstreet

Movie Battles II Team Retired
Posts
242
Likes
299
I didn't say you were. Neither is Mace attacking anyone that I can see? Merely observing that what you are accusing Mace of doing is something you do an awful lot of.

Anyway, no need to derail this thread. Thanks.
I challenge you to a duel! Derailment is exactly what we need!

vlcsnap-2014-01-11-19h41m49s189.png

1. Search through my post history on this forum
2. Search through Mace's post history on this forum
3. If I have more posts where I'm insulting someone (or a group of people) than Mace, relative to overall post count, then I will donate $20 to the mod
4. If Mace has more insulting posts than me, relative to post count, then you have to donate $20 to the mod
I won't even cheat and delete any posts.

DO YOU ACCEPT DUEL REQUEST? [Y/N]

(also you're wrong, he totally said that the OpenJK team didn't know what they were doing, like twice in this thread now, and said more or less that I should shut up)
 
Top