Talk:TF2 Design Theory

From Valve Developer Community
Jump to: navigation, search

Going to be working on this page all today, and for now just going to save this tiny section if anyone wants to give it a read. This page is going to be pretty long, mainly featuring all the things to take up when making a TF2 map. So hopefully this will help anyone, as its going to be very, very long.--Gear 14:16, 11 Jan 2008 (PST)

Shaping up to be an interesting read! Keep on, good job! :) --Etset 14:48, 11 Jan 2008 (PST)
Agreed, looks good! --Daeval 14:50, 11 Jan 2008 (PST)
Thanks guys, mainly theres not too much info on starting a TF2 map the right way, so i wanted to get some of the important things down, instead of having mappers go in blind. On top of that, Tf2 has great mapping, and so i wanted to get it down to the form of text to really show what goes into making a map from the beginning to end, within TF2.--Gear 15:29, 11 Jan 2008 (PST)
Could you normalize the map name capitalizations? It looks so awful to see cp_DustBowl, CP_Dustbowl, cp_dustbowl, cp_Dustbowl and CP_DustBowl all on the same page :) --Baliame (talk) 06:20, 12 Jan 2008 (PST)
Remember im still working on it, ;_)!--Gear 06:25, 12 Jan 2008 (PST)

Typos & stuff

Since you still seem to be editing this page (still have the WIP template on it), I'll just warn you here: the Maintenance > misspelling page has detected a few typos: arent (aren't), dont (don't) and alot (a lot). Please correct them ;) --Etset 04:01, 15 Jan 2008 (PST)

I tend to type a lot, like alot, still I'll get it fixed, and thanks.--Gear 08:41, 15 Jan 2008 (PST)
Ok :) The WIP warning is still up (it's been a while...), so I took the liberty to correct the typos and also avoid a redirect through "TF2/Multiple Round Goal Systems" to the page TF2/Creating a Linear Gameplay Map. If you overwrite the article with a newer version, please be sure to edit that too ;) --Etset 05:21, 19 Jan 2008 (PST)

Page History

I'm currently in the process of rough drafting everything, to make it more better than what it is now, so expect to see some major changes. I'll also get this done soon, just need to sort out some more information.--Gear 14:31, 21 Jan 2008 (PST)


Frankly, it's horrible throughout the entire page. Random capitalization, misuse of commas and lots of other errors dominate this page. I'm going to clean up as much as I can to make it more readable. Timdorr 14:03, 23 Mar 2008 (PDT)

My brain hurts. I'm taking a break... Timdorr 14:46, 23 Mar 2008 (PDT)

This whole article isn't very well written or formatted. I reworked a bunch of it and took out the formatting in the section titles. Some of the theory is a bit bogus and not very easy to follow. The page may need to be split into two different articles. It's trying to over TF2 design theory as well as basic map design theory. I'm going to put this on my watchlist and I'll continue to peck away at it. Matthew Dryden 01:05, 24 Mar 2008 (PDT)
Alright it's not all that bad, however you have really re-written everything that was mainly here, and really at the same time buried some of the original work made. Thats not a problem, but, really this is what this article is about, mapping, with TF2 elements, and its a combination of how things work in TF2, and then using them within TF2 design, while it's fine, or better now, it probably should not be split into two articles. This should be a single guide to noobs out there, within a single pace.See ig this was split, then we'd have an article about making TF2 maps? And an article with whats in a TF2 map? Sure thats okay, but at the same time a bit stupid. Most people know whats in a TF2 map, so its better to combine both into a single article, and tell it off from there. Also some of the images are gone, or they we're moved, I couldn't tell, it be nice if you would use them, as they would be unused most likely in any other article. Plus then it was a waste taking them... Also I'm glad you mention things like how great TF2 is, and the wiki, but that shouldn't be something that needs to be told to the reader, as its kinda in the way. It's not bad, but it's sorta self promoting, when it really doesn't have anything to do with the article.--Gear 10:40, 24 Mar 2008 (PDT)
I only rewrote two sections. A lot of the article is very informative and well thought out. I rewrote the introduction to put it in an active voice..."Many people ask what goes into the construction of a good TF2 map." is good, but I felt it lacked a certain special something that I think this article deserves.

The reason I suggested that this article may need to be split into two articles is because you do reference three articles at the beginning, and then go on a bit at the bottom about standard map design theory. What may be a better route to go is creating a whole article dedicated to regular map theory (example: Design over detail, and constructing gameplay area). Mapping is a large, complex subject that really cannot be boiled down to any single article.

I apologize for commenting out your images. There was a problem with the formatting, and I wanted to take a closer look at it later before adding them back in. If you edit the article, they're still there. I just wanted to give it a cleaner appearance. As for your last comment, I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about. In both the sections I've rewritten, there is no mention of the wiki or how great TF2 is. If anything, I rewrote the intro to give the article more of cautionary tale feel. The undertaking of a great TF2 map is difficult and a very trying experience. New mappers should understand that going into the pre-production.

I can't speak for Timdoorr, but a wiki article is ever-evolving. Each editor should assume good faith, we're all here to make articles the very best they can be. Matthew Dryden 11:18, 24 Mar 2008 (PDT)
Also, you have a whole page dedicated to Team Fortress 2 Level Creation. Housing different articles or referencing them there wouldn't be so bad, would it? Matthew Dryden 11:29, 24 Mar 2008 (PDT)
Sorry about the Wiki inform, that must of been a different user, honestly I don't mind, but really we all know how great the wiki is, so I see no use to have blunt advertising about a website that you're already in, because of course people can judge for themselves ;). However yeah, I like most of what you've done, the only thing I'm not sure is the article split, but with time, we'll see how that goes, and if it really is required, perhaps it is though. Referencing other articles is fine too, do whatever you feel that helps ths article out, as its the biggest main article for TF2, and possibly Tf2 map making in the internet!--Gear 12:07, 24 Mar 2008 (PDT)
I'm still confused about the wiki mention--where was it? I'm curious to see what you mean. Matthew Dryden
It was somewhere, now that it's been edited I think its remove, I do belive it was maybe in the middle, by the Cp section.--Gear 21:28, 25 Mar 2008 (PDT)


Just passing through courtesy of the Pyro page ... What's up with the tone in the (current version of the) first section? Bit miserable don't you think? It's all quite "It's really fucking hard, man! Your map is probably gonna suck!" Could be a bit more cheery and "have a go!", don't you think? -- Giles

It doesn't seem that bad to me. If you want to make improvements go right ahead! I made one minor change to number two myself. --TomEdwards 01:25, 19 Jun 2008 (PDT)
I agree with you guys, as much as this page has changed from the initial way I wrote it, it's been improved for the better, and I'm very glad that it can be part of an Important part of the How-to-make-a-TF2-map process,(if that makes any sense). Aside that, the whole page got a super makeover, nice job whomever did that, (tom).--Gear 19:08, 20 Jun 2008 (PDT)

I think I've found a good balance now. --TomEdwards 05:37, 17 Oct 2008 (PDT)

Gravelpit B

Scouts can get up on to the roof of point B, see here for proof. Actually every class can get on top of B via an engineer "exploit", I'm not posting a link to that video here, but it's fairly easy to find it on youtube.--Brandished 10:23, 1 Jul 2008 (PDT)

I think we should stick to the way it's been designed, rather than any exploits that people find. The mappers say in the commentary that the roof was made so that only soldier and demo classes can reach it. --TomEdwards 11:30, 1 Jul 2008 (PDT)
I felt the same way Tom does, but I don't really mind if it stays, it requires more careful trick jumping, and were only noting the classes that can reach it normally via a blast jump.
Hmm, I see were you are coming from, it doesn't appear to have been designed intentionally to allow the scouts up there, but the geometry in the level still allows for it without too much trouble. In almost every competitive (and occasional pub) match I've seen on gravelpit, Scouts have always jumped up on to the roof using one of the ways I've demonstrated, I wouldn't exactly call it an exploit, otherwise leagues wouldn't allow it. The way it's worded now, even if I reverted it back, I imagine someone else will still probably come along and change it back. Possibly re-word it to something like "Only Soldiers and Demomen can easily access the roof of Point B"? --Brandished 14:41, 1 Jul 2008 (PDT)
I'd go for something along the lines of "Only Soldiers and Demomen (though enterprising players can reach it with other classes)" --TomEdwards 14:48, 1 Jul 2008 (PDT)