1994 tune-up challenge (*updated /idgames link*)

[Snarboo]

Keep in mind that any wad you suggest needs the original author's permission to modify. I think Michael Reed stated in each of his wads that modification was not allowed, so that means we couldn't touch Hoover Dam. Besides, his maps are considered classics and I'm not sure it would be worth it to modify them. This is true with many other classic wads, even if the author allowed for derivatives.

I'll look into the other maps you posted, though.

Edit: Most of the maps you listed do not permit modification or do not have enough information, Super Jamie. Both NJDooms allow modification but are both pretty big wads. We could easily dedicate the entire project to those alone. :p

[Super Jamie]

Perhaps someone could just pick their favorite map from njdoom? Maybe Enjay could even choose one himself :P Bit of a party pooper about the others, sorry I didn't think to check first.

[Snarboo]

It's okay. I've actually thought of compiling Michael Reed's levels into one wad, but I would never be able to release it, unfortunately.

NJDoom definitely has some good maps in it that could be tuned-up.

[pcorf]

Snarboo said:

It's okay. I've actually thought of compiling Michael Reed's levels into one wad, but I would never be able to release it, unfortunately.

NJDoom definitely has some good maps in it that could be tuned-up.

I actually did this myself but of course didn't release it.

I should perhaps hunt down an ordinary map from maximum doom and touch it up and give it some good looks.

[Snarboo]

pcorf said:

I should perhaps hunt down an ordinary map from maximum doom and touch it up and give it some good looks.

Would you mind posting any maps you find here?

Since enough people seem interested, I'm going to work on the rule list and an example wad, then update the first post with information. I'm probably going to wait at least a day so more maps can be suggested and things like custom textures can be discussed.

[Reevys]

I actually liked the idea of a megawad of this. It certainly seems like there's enough levels for it.

[ArmouredBlood]

Sorry for jumping the gun here, but Element.wad interested me, and after playing decided to do some changes ... I broke the "no moving vertexes on original sectors" rule, but adding new sectors to broaden old rooms a little is annoying.

I think Chang did a good job on this map and should've touched it up and re-released it when better tools came out. I'm wondering what the rest of you think of my changes ... the most noticeable is the removal of the BFG and megasphere, no real need for these, and probably the widening of the marble room and ceiling height change for the cave.

Anyway tell me what you think.

http://wadhost.fathax.com/files/AB.1994C.ELEMENT.zip

[Snarboo]

I have to be honest and say I didn't notice too much of a difference until I opened the wad up in an editor. That's not necessarily a bad thing, mind. I think it is possible to improve on the original level without removing or moving any of the original lines or vertexes, however.

Edit:
I'm wondering something: is being limited to the maps original lines and vertexes too strict? The reason I suggested it was as a limit to work around, kind of like 1024's size limit. It also seemed to work well for the Oblige tuning wads.

I think older maps have a strong design to them that isn't obvious at first, and having to work with and around it seems like it would be really fun. But is it necessary?

[ArmouredBlood]

Snarboo said:
I'm wondering something: is being limited to the maps original lines and vertexes too strict?[/B]

The problem with limiting to that is that it doesn't really limit anything. We can just add sectors around the old sectors shaped the way we want while lowering them to a floor height and changing the textures. adding a no sector height change for original sectors would be better to me, as then you have to keep platforms about the same, but changing the general shape of a corridor is possible. Of course you then lose out on small height difference problems like being able to fire in at the cacodemons guarding the red key in the ash room because of a small height difference, which I don't think should be there. So the rule that makes most sense to me is 'keep the general outline and architecture of the map while adding and fixing some details'. As you said I didn't really change all that much, but did it remove and fix the small things bringing the map down?

[Snarboo]

I think participants should be able to change things like height, textures, and lighting. 1994 maps were bland because they lacked things like height or lighting variation. The underlying design and layouts seem to be what were strongest about those maps and would be fun to work with. Like you said, it doesn't really limit anything by forcing participants to keep the original vertexes and lines, so it wouldn't be much of a problem to work within those confines.

The other reason I feel a limit like that is necessary is because it would keep any participants from scrapping the entire map and just making something roughly inspired by the original but not necessarily in keeping with the original design. Maybe that's not a bad thing, though.

[Gez]

Rather than "don't move vertices" which is a bit hypocritical given how easy it is to cheat, maybe something like "don't alter room dimensions (by more than x units or percent)".

For example, you can move vertices a bit if it helps fixing alignment or to allow some sector-based detailing, but a 1024x256 room must remain between, say, 1088x288 and 960x224.

This measure is independent of vertex position, linedef length and sector count. A room is a room is a room.

[Snarboo]

That's a good idea. It allows for the original map to act as a base and gives participants room to experiment. I like it. :)

[ArmouredBlood]

Heh, well there goes my version of the soul sphere secret. Gez explained what I was feeling but couldn't say right.

[Super Jamie]

Saying just vertexes is too limiting. To give a quick crappy example:





Changing the first pic to the second pic does not retain the original vertex (or if it did, it would be invisible anyway, but doesn't break the flow of the map.

I agree that moving whole corridors and resizing rooms would be the wrong way to do things. Perhaps just indicate that a room's basic position and dimensions are to stay the same wherever possible.

Edit: Gez beat me to it :P

[Snarboo]

Those are all good examples, and that would be better than restricting participants to the original vertexes. So the basic idea is to use the original rooms as guidelines and try to keep the dimensions as similar as possible?

[The Green Herring]

There are a few WAD compilations out there that you could file through to find possible levels, such as these. (Some of the levels listed in this thread are included in those.) Some other suggestions:

Xenomorph 'The complex' (XENO11.WAD) - Huge base in an open field. A bug prevents 100% Kills and it's too easy to speed your way to the exit if you know how, but both of those can be fixed, and the base itself looks quite good for its time.

OUTLAND.WAD (IMPROVISE, ADAPT, OVERCOME) - A partially-subverted base with a sewer that ends in a battle with three barons (on UV) in a dark, open field. Progression requires you to find (sometimes unmarked) hidden doors, but otherwise, it's not too bad.

FORTRESS.WAD - Large fort which is pretty fun to explore. Has an unfortunately required maze on your way to the yellow key (although you can easily navigate it if you use the right-hand rule,) but maybe that can be changed into another open field. The author takes a dig at people who want to use it as a base, but he does give permission. ;p (He also made MOONBASE.WAD, which could probably be used as an early level in an episode with enough modification. Both levels appear in WADPAK1A.WAD.)

[Snarboo]

Hey thanks, Herring! Those will come in handy, especially the wad packs. :)

[The Green Herring]

No problem! I should note that the latest version of WOODHALL.WAD, included in WADPAK2.WAD (as E2M2) without a text file, is WOODHAL2.WAD, which includes a text file and allows modification.

EDIT (8:04 PM PDT): Forgot a word, whoops.

[Spertz]

Good idea. Could I participate?

[40oz]

I think we should be able to move vertices around due to some maps having sectors that look like this which are damn near impossible to add details to. Unless of course you want to make sure maps to choose from definitely don't have that.

[esselfortium]

Super Jamie said:

Saying just vertexes is too limiting. To give a quick crappy example:

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n232/superjamiedotnet/doom/oldedit1.jpg

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n232/superjamiedotnet/doom/oldedit2.jpg

Changing the first pic to the second pic does not retain the original vertex (or if it did, it would be invisible anyway, but doesn't break the flow of the map.

I agree that moving whole corridors and resizing rooms would be the wrong way to do things. Perhaps just indicate that a room's basic position and dimensions are to stay the same wherever possible.

Edit: Gez beat me to it :P

Cool, but you're breaking some major rules (well, not rules) of good texture alignment there ;)

[Super Jamie]

I am aware of this. You may notice I've manually offset the concrete tiles by a few pixels each linedef around the curved pillar, so the left and right corners end in an even tile.

If that was a proper try, I'd split the METAL up so that the two wall lines end with a dark line on the vertex where the curve begins, and and the left and right sides of the curve have an edge line, probably making the middle have a few pixels of extra space, or different rivet spacing than the wall lines. I'd also vertically align the STARTAN, or move the middle-wall detailing up/down to fit in better with the wall pattern. I'd probably replicate the bottom METAL detailing on the top of the wall, and split the inset METAL details down the middle, and not have them repeat (eg: 64 of vents, 64 of pipes), maybe even use 64 of METAL and 64 of COMPsomething. Changing the light level where I have used LIGHT textures would help too :P

However this is why I said it was a quick crappy example. Don't worry, I've read that thread quite a few times, and even use your wall support tips in my own maps :)

Edit: Like this :P

[Snarboo]

JohnnyRancid said:

I think we should be able to move vertices around due to some maps having sectors that look like this which are damn near impossible to add details to.

I've changed my mind on this exactly because of situations like that. I think participants should have more control over their chosen map, and that means vertex control, but we should make our maps as similar as possible. That's easy enough to judge, however. :)

Unless of course you want to make sure maps to choose from definitely don't have that.

It would probably be best to choose a map that doesn't have crazy sectors, but that's up to the participant. I don't want to restrict the kind of maps that we can use.

[SirTimberWolf]

I dig this idea a lot.

Have you got a timeframe you're looking for? I'm in the middle of a move right now so I can't really put any time down but I'd like to give it a go.

The general consensus seems to be 'use common sense' when doing these maps. Bring out the concept as best you can without starting from scratch. Is that a fair assestment?

Also, I didn't notice but is there a specific port to be aiming for or are we looking for just 'limit removing'?

[Snarboo]

SirTimberWolf said:

Have you got a timeframe you're looking for?

For the time being, there isn't. I still have to come up with an official rule set. Most community wads take a few months to complete, and I believe that this will be no different.

The general consensus seems to be 'use common sense' when doing these maps. Bring out the concept as best you can without starting from scratch. Is that a fair assestment?

Yep, that's exactly what I think we should aim for. :) Another way to put it is bringing out the strengths in old maps while removing their weaknesses.

Also, I didn't notice but is there a specific port to be aiming for or are we looking for just 'limit removing'?

This too hasn't been decided. This will most likely either be limit removing or Boom, with the maps compiled for Doom 2. Since most of these maps are for the Ultimate Doom, a texture set that combines both Ultimate and 2's textures together will be needed.

[SirTimberWolf]

Excelent. Thanks for the quick reply :)

Regarding the textures specifically:

http://doomworld.com/idgames/?id=11882

I'd suggest avoiding new textures (outside of maybe 'fixing' shawn1 but I deffer to your judgment on the matter. I'll definitely be keeping tabs on this and when I have the time, I'll be submitting some work for it.

[Snarboo]

Thanks for the textures, TimberWolf. That's exactly what I was thinking of when I posted. :)

[Snarboo]

The official rule set has been post. Please let me know what you think.

Let's get this show on the road! :)

[Solarn]

I'd like to work on the third map in the Brian and Craig Sparks series.

[SirTimberWolf]

I think I'll be working on Doomsday of the UAC

One of my all time favorite levels.

http://www.doomworld.com/idgames/index.php?id=420

I'll try to post progress shots as I get time.