Praetoria-Mission One: Bunker Hill

(Diego) #41

Alex,

I understand what you are saying. I know you never said it was your map. The problem is that the changes that you have made to it make the map look bad. And as a result, make me look bad as a mapper.

Everyone has their own opinion about what makes a map look good. But one of the rights as the map maker is that I get to be the one to determine what looks good and what doesn’t… at least until some one comes up with some kind of “snow” mod for it. :roll: But you have to understand that visual modifications like the “summer” mod for Fueldump are not removing the original textures. They are simply loaded in place of the original ones which still exist in the .pk3 files. As far as the fog is concerned, I just think it makes the map look horrible and I would never release a map looking like that.

But the main issue here is the modifications that you have done to the script. These changes are essentially creating a second version of the map. But you can not have 2 versions of the same map with the same map name in the same /etmain folder. They will have conflicts. To understand what I mean, put the original Praetoria, and your modified Praetoria_LE in the same /etmain folder. Try to load the original one. You will not be able to because only 1 map will show up in the list and when you load it, it will always be your modified version.

I know that you have played modifcations of other maps like Fueldump that have had ETpro mapscripts made for them. These scripts reside in different directories from the original script. They can be used to fix bugs, exploits, or change the gameplay of the map without damaging the original script file. If you wish to make changes to my script for your server, please use an ETpro mapscript to do it. That way, your clients will still download the original version of the map but they will be able to play your modified version on your server.

If people continue to hear good things about a map, they will eventually take the time to download it. You only have to do it once. If they like it, they will not care how big it is. But there will always be someone who does not like the map for one reason or another. I am sure there are many people who have tried praetoria and don’t like it. But Making the filesize smaller will not make these people like the map any more than they did before.

I am glad that you like my map and I hope that you will continue to host it on your server. Thank you for letting me know about the changes that you made. If you absolutely must use these script modifications on your server, please use an ETpro mapscript so that ther are no conflicts with my original. I’m sorry that I had to be an ass about it. I know that you want to help me make it more popular. But removing the most unique features from a map is not the right way to do it. It takes more than a small file size to make the map popular.

(CooperHawkes) #42

it should read GT0, instead of GTO…
(it’s “Greater Than Zero”, not “Greater Than ‘O’” :wink: )

alphaFunc GT0 —> don’t draw the portions of the texture that have an alpha value of zero (which is completely transparent), i.e. draw everything where the alpha value is greater than zero.
This alphaFunc is usually taken for masking operations, e.g. to draw fences. However, IMO you get better results with GT128 and the right blending function in such cases (blendFunc GL_ONE GL_ZERO), because you get some sort of “super fine resolution” by bilinear texture interpolation… or in other words: sloped edges in the texture do look much better than with GT0 (less aliasing). (BTW: don’t forget to disable mipmapping with fence-like structures or you will get pretty strange visual results when seen from far away).
Another application of alphaFunc GT0 is to reduce overdraw if large parts of your texture are transparent.
Well, I guess I better stop talking now, before my babbling gets too confusing. :wink:

(Ryan) #43

I think that Diego’s map is certainly worth the downloading time.

And what I like most about the map is the super realistic sky and lights :smiley:

I LOVE THAT ORANGE EFFECT!!!

And the light version deleted the plane scripting??? :x

OMG, Thats the best winning expierence you can get after playing 30 min!
A real show for your team at the end! It totally ROCKS.
It really’s makes you want to play the map again :smiley:
Can’t get enough of the planes!
(Diego, maybe you can place something in the script, a link to your website, with the full explanation of the campaign you’re making?)

(broloi) #44

I fully understand Diego on this.

If he used as much time as he says on the deleted features, they should still be there.

No need to make a lighter version, people just needs patient with the download of this GREAT map.

(Diego) #45

OMG!

I have seen that error for months and I never realized I was using an “O” and not a “0”. :oops:

Thanks for that detailed explanation about the alpha blending. Those things always confuse me. It’s a miracle I was ever able to get any of my shaders to work. I’ll have to fix these shaders so that they are drawn properly in the next map. If I accumulate enough of these little changes, I’ll release a new version of this one.

What’s more fun than downloading a large map file?

Downloading it twice. :lol:

Ryan was also good enough to show me a small exploit in the map. Apparently, it IS possible to sneak into the bunker by squeezing through the South Defenses MG nest opening. I tried this several times unsuccessfully so I did not think it was possible.

However, with all of the trickjumpers, player stackers, and Mods allowing Double jumps and vertical player push’s. I knew that someone would find a way inside the bunker before they were supposed too no matter what precautions I took.

So, If anybody thinks this exploit will allow the allies to win the map early by cheating. In encourage you to try it. :twisted:

(Erls) #46

Alright, here goes.

Diego, We played through your map a number of times so far on Bunker2, a 40+4 NQ server based in Europe. For me, I hate slithly worse FPS than normal (20-30), but I also have an old, crappy laptop. Normally I’m happy if I’m at 40, so getting 20-30 on a EU server (I’m in Phoenix) wasn’t to bad. The map didn’t cause any major lag problems, in fact it runs smoother than a lot of maps I’ve played. It looks nice from what I can tell (I have minimal graphics enabled to help my FPS), but from what people were saying it looks amazing.

I was slightly confused at first on where to go/what to do, but after a half match or so I figured it out. Not bad, overall, about average in terms of dificulty in figuring out where/how to do the objective I would say.

The download, while large, is like you say a one time only thing, and the people who play on bunker servers will download whatever maps are put up there, as they expect the campaign creators to choose good maps, so no worries about that. besides, it goes pretty fast with 500+ a sec.

Anyway, now for the big issue. Your map caused the Max_Gamestate_Chars Exceeded error. This error, to date of our knowledge, is found in: Venice, Ruins, MLB Daybreak, MLB Egypt, Resurrection, and now Praetorian: Bunker Hill. From what we (Bunker Gaming, mainly Jecoliah), have been able to figure out, this issue comes from the length and amount of info being sent to each client. For exmple, Jecoliah has almost fixed Venice, but he ahs had to remove/replace many constructables, CP’s, corunnas, etc… With this error, the map cannot be run on Bunker1, Bunker2, Bunker5, Bunker10, Bunker64, and possible Bunker4 as well, as the error will crash the server with enough people playing. If you want to add me on msn (ohlow at hotmail dot com), I have a couple ideas if your interested if working on this. If not, no worries. You’ve made a great map, and I would love to see it on all Bunker servers.

(alex82) #47

I play on >B< server only once this morning with this map, and we get this error after the map end, when the end sequence started (the airstrike)

(Diego) #48

Alex,
How many players did you have in the game when it crashed?

Eris,
I’ve added you. I’ll be at work for quite a while today. I’m pulling a lot of overtime right now.

(alex82) #49

30-40 active players was there, dont know exactly how many plays because many was spectator (because of the new map).

Everything work fine it was a hard fight at the last minutes the allies destroyed the radar i saw the first or second aeroplane and bumm, the crash. NQ mod have always this chars error things on some map… :frowning:

(Erls) #50

Diego, this error that Alex is talking about is the same one I mentioned. When the server crashed, the teams were 15v16, with 7 people spectator (3 were downloading at that time). I should be around just all day till late tonight or so as well, and no worries, I got loads of time right now as well, so whenever is good for you.

Also, Alex, this error has nothing to do with NQ. The error is directly related (from what we’ve found) to the length and amount of strings sent to the clients. I might not be 100% correct word wise, as I’m not a ‘expert’ in this area. The error generally takes place on maps with moving vehicles (Tank, Boat, Truck), lots of constructables, as well as many things to destroy.

(system) #51

:o This map is awesome !
I tested it a few times and i love it.

it would be nice to see that part two is a map where the axis must defend, and in the third again the allies final win :roll:
just my thought :expressionless:

Thank you :slight_smile:

(Diego) #52

Thanks Dutchman.

The 2nd part will continue the allied assault from the main bunker to an axis research complex where they need to steal their main objective. I have a lot of the construction done on it, but I have not had time to really get the objectives working in it. Part 3 is only at the idea stage but will tie in directly with the first 2.

(Ryan) #53

I could supply some ideas :smiley: :stuck_out_tongue:

(system) #54

Hi :slight_smile:

I just finished cleaning up the campaigns and put yours in it.
We have/had 26 MB maps on it and the regular players accepted it. Bridges for instance…
I hope they don’t come cry on my *ss cause of the size :stuck_out_tongue:

ok, looking forward to the next release :roll:

(alex82) #55

there is not many map where axis team is the attacker. So one idea:

  1. mission:
    Axis try to make the controll again over the main bunker (from misison one where radar is.) Allies must stop it, defend the bunker.

(lol interacitve play: if axis win back to mission 1 if not continuo to mission 3)

3 mission:

this will be the 3rd instead of 2th

(Diego) #56

this will be the 3rd instead of 2th[/quote]

I know a lot of people want to see more axis attack maps. But I don’t know anyone that would want to replay the same map again with modified objectives. It is far easier to run a stopwatch server so everyone gets a chance to play the map from both sides.

The Mission one and Mission two were originally designed to be one map. Splitting that one into two maps was the only way to get a decent compile and keep my objectives. So this map will definitely stay as mission two.

However, for mission three, I am considering making that one either a dual objective map, or more likely a map that has allied attacking for the first half, and axis attacking for the second half. I can’t remember the name of the map that does that. But the axis must build and escort a V2 rocket on a train. So I might make mission 3 like that. Nothing is set yet though.

(broloi) #57

ET wasnt designed for Axis attack maps… Just listen to the voice announcements… theres a lot of the allies announcements thats the attacking type, while few of the axis are, the axis are defending announcements…

And whats the problem, just change team whenever you want to attack or defend… it cant be that hard, can it…

(alex82) #58

V2 factory is the map name.

However if axis can attack on the 3rd mission and the map will look awsome like 1 (and i think 2 also because of the splitting) the maps will rocks!

Maybe Et was not designed for axis map, but ppl like them :).

Keep up the good work for the ET community!

(Diego) #59

I’ve tried to keep all of my voice commands for objectives as something that can be edited together using the existing voices. Many of the objectives in Mission One are using edited voice commands.

Of course, I do get a really big laugh out of the homemade voice commands in the MLB maps. But for now, I want to avoid having to record myelf giving orders. I think I would just sound lame.

For mission three, I won’t make a dual objective map just to make one. If it works well with the overall scenario of the three missions, then I will find a way to incorporate it in. If not, then I will have to stick to the allied attack.

(Ryan) #60

Maybe in the third map you can play as the paratroopers that came thru in map 1?

Thats a nice plot :slight_smile:
So you’ll start back in time, same time as original map 1 begins but now you are a diff soldier. a Airborne instead of ground troop.

Would be fun if you can hear over the radio how the groundtroops are doing.
If map 1 is lost, then map 3 will be short :wink:
Imagine you flying in the plane, knowing you lost the previous map, and you can be shot down any moment.
So if map 1 is lost, in map 3 you’ll get shot down :slight_smile:

If map 1 is won by the allies, you can fly through and play the full map 3.

And maybe it could be cooperated with the mod Wolfenstein: The Frontline, were parachutist are actually possible.

Ask me for a picture :slight_smile:

Just an Idea if you dont know what to do with map 3