ONS-FacingGiants2004
Map Info
	File Name ons-facinggiants2004-v2.zip Author oMLeTTe Gametype UT2k4 Onslaught Date Added 11-07-2004 File Version 2.00 File Size 23.52 mb Player Count 23 - 64 Map Description This map is the successor of the CTF map FacingGiants for Unreal Tournament. It features two gigantic bases facing each other, devided in the middle by a great lavastream. One being an medieval castle and the other an ancient pyramid. This is the updated version where the former skybox has been removed and been replaced by fog for performance's sake. A lot of detail is also now only visible with high world detail on. This version also contains working botpaths! I hope you enjoy the map, there is much to discover! :-) Review Rating -- User Rating 5.5 Overall Rating --
Review
No review currently available for this map. Click here to request a review of this map.
Map Comments
RayZidane 11-04-2004 08:15 PM MST   Edit : ok fine , then fix this map would you? ChromeBallz 11-09-2004 01:08 PM MST Rating: 3   The reason for this low grade is actually just the framerate issue. It's even worse than the NyLeve Falls remake!!!!!! The map also looks overly saturated, and several meshes have been used simply to much. Compressing a pillar mesh to 1/4th height is also stupid, it just looks wrong. Antiportals have been forgotten, there's only some in the bases. There's too much in view, renderwise, to make it smooth. More and better placed antiportals please! Also, the entire map is in essence a static mesh. Why? A lot of sections could be made with brushes, some of the rooms for example, which you can zone off for even more performance gain. Also, the only pathnode i saw was a roadpathnode. I don't know much about mapping, but isn't that only for vehicles? Why bother putting in those pathnodes if there aren't any normal ones? Only takes away rebuild time, and probably some performance. The lavafall meshes are overly animated. It looks too over-the-top to be believable. The skybox looks just wrong. I've never seen planets rotate that fast around a ctf level, and why is the lit side spinning around while the sun is at a sttic position? Rotating skyboxes might be fun, but the only level where it ever was really believable and good looking was the original CTF-Face. The lay-out could also have been better. This map's layout xoesn't look like ONS, more like a huge CTF map. There's just nmot anything really positive about this map, except maybe the graphic theme, which i did like. The execution of it could have been soooooooooooooooooo much better :( And why is it a friggin 100 mb unpacked????? edit: edited score to 10 to offset those bullshit 0 scores -_- And about me having a prehistoric system: check my pc specs by clicking on my name. Note: I always play in the highest detail though. I didn't mean that you replace static meshes with brushes - only some of the simple box meshes for rooms. 6 additive and 1 extracted brsuh to form the basic room, and fill it up with meshes, is better than having those be a static mesh. Zoning would help performace on this map a lot, and that can only be done with brushes. PHa-Q 11-03-2004 09:11 AM MST   Wether you like bots or not - you should implement bot pathign into your map - so that you have the option to switch off bots, and others can switch them on... so expect there to be more critisism. Also if you dont add good bot pathing, then users won't really have a good time testing this map, as very few will bother uploading it to a server and waitting till peeps have downloaded 35 megs worth of your map - just to test it. So it's reduced to testing it offline - and at that with no bots... not a wise decision. In which case I wont bother with the download. Nisori 11-03-2004 11:59 AM MST   Dude...you have to support bots. There are a lot of people with UT2k4 that only play the game via single player (not everyone has a Broadband connection). Your map looks extremly impressive and may be worth the download but, unfortunatley I wont be dling it due to lack of bot support. Throw in some bot support, and maybe it might be worth my time. Trynant 11-03-2004 03:20 PM MST   I agree with everyone who thinks adding botpathing would help. Don't you like apples? redfist 11-08-2004 07:57 PM MST   A map is not a map till it's botpathed. EDIT WTH does this map get updated and uploaded each day,lol.............. Sicko Teddy 11-03-2004 07:54 PM MST Rating: 6.5   Try reducing map size by compressing your custom textures to DXT1 in testure browser. This saves memory and rendering TREMMMMENDOUSLY! And eah I agree- Pathnodes have to be worked out. You can see if your pathnodes are well connected by pressing the left button in the top left corner of your 3D view and going to VIEW and pressing SHOW PATHS. This will show WHITE lines between pathnodes that are connected properly. GRAPHICS ARE GREAT THOUGH. just tackle the glitches and come back here! We will look fwd to see this well improved. Mugsy 11-04-2004 03:24 AM MST   Agree with previous comments about bots - if bots aren't going to be implemented correctly, my suggestion is to not implement it at all and say that there is no bot support in your map. That way, you won't get disgruntled 56k users, who only play with bots, downloading a 35Mb file and getting even more disgruntled because they wasted over 2hrs getting a map they will never touch again. I understand that you did say bot support was very basic but the term 'basic' can be interpreted differently by everyone. Anyway, I have decided not to rate this map as I believe that will some more work on performance optimisation and bot pathing, this would be a killer map - I'll vote then. Ma!ice 11-04-2004 05:10 PM MST Rating: 0   No Bots...No Score, I don't care if you wanna or not. SilverHairDevil 11-04-2004 09:14 PM MST   Omellette: I agree with yer 1st paragraph, and ur 2nd, but not yer third. A. Don't post the map if it's just for you. B. I don't believe you've ever played with bots on a skill level above experienced...I may be wrong, you might be a prodigy C. How would you play without bots?...Online maybe, but then again, people may not put this on their servers because of what other people are saying about yer map. Evil Snack 11-08-2004 11:37 AM MST Rating: 6.5   (Gags) Bleah! nevermind, The map is descent now, I will try to shut up now. SoH_Ghost3021 11-08-2004 03:28 PM MST Rating: 8.5   with good performance, good detail, and desent botpathing, id give this a 8ish. oh yeah, did i mention the map itself was fun?(thats kinda important :P) Toothpick 11-09-2004 07:23 AM MST Rating: 9.5   Ma!ice, a 0 and no score is something different. -.- Anyway, super map. Tresset 12-03-2005 05:03 PM MST Rating: 3   Normaly I wouldn't hurt a map's rating because of bad fps, but when it's this bad, what can I say?