Time it takes to make a map
Hey, I'm not really new here I just haven't gotten into mapping yet. I was wondering if there is a chance I could make a map and have it ready by the time the game comes out. Or does it take 6-12 month to make one? I probably wouldn't make one that is very large or too complex, mostly want one that is playable and fun and then I can improve the detail later. Heh, I may not even be starting off on the right track. Anyway, I'll be reading up on the mapping guidelines and then start the planning.
Comments
Of course this is if you are not full time mapping.
Sure it may take 5-6 months to make the map; but it also takes a great deal of time to learn and use the editor itself.
Then again the estimated time of map creation lies solely on a large number of things.
- How familiar you are with the spark map editor
- The size of your map
- The amount of detail you plan on including
- If you include custom materials/props
I'd say if your just starting out, it would be months if your only doing this in your spare time.
That is full-time, but modding as well. Part-Time I would really be looking at a year.
As to how long it takes to make a map, its down to the individual and his work ethic. If you work at it 8 hours a day, or more, you will have it done in maybe 2 months. If you decide to make all your own assets, I'd double the amount of time. Want it to be official? I'd add another month of testing time.
I'm unemployed right now, so I literally attempt 8 hours a day starting just a few days ago from a break. I don't always reach 8, but again it's due to my work ethic.
On a side note, my girlfriend is an oil painter and she works 11 hours at a time :S
Before I released turtle b1, when I started to see a complete object, I spent two months literally working more than 12 hours a day, sometimes working for 2 days straight. And that was when I thought it was nearly done. Between b1 and b2 it took about the same amount of work hours just taking it a bit cooler because i was tiring myself a lot. The readyroom, which is very basic and was more functional than anything else as i didn't want to spend too much time on it still took me at least a day of work. Pulling lines, applying textures, aligning them, lighting, entities... There are only so much faces you can create in an hour, only so much textures you can apply...
Not to discourage you guys but realize it is A LOT of work. Especially if you want your map to bring something interesting for the players. Preparation is the most important thing if you are creating from scratch, developing a good layout and a nice flow of spaces also takes a tremendous amount of time to get to the famous greybox which is the essence of your map. From there it is an easier road and I would say the greybox is 2/3 of the work. Texture is 2/3 of the remainder. lighting is 2/3 of the next remainder and so on...
No. It doesn't matter what the tools are. It's a lot of work, so it's going to take a lot of time.
You clearly don't know how to map, or how professional mappers work or you would never have made that statement. Which is uninformed.
Around 2004-2005 it took roughly three months to build a map for UT2k4 or Quake 4 if you were building a medium sized Death-Match-map.
The last time I worked with an editor was in 2009 with the Unreal Engine 3 and it took four months to get something done that was not even beta.
The Spark editor has the major advantage that you can do a LOT within the editor itself due to its free form handling of geometry. With the Unreal Engine you can't build anything decent looking without having to create your own static meshes (props) and textures. Similar problems with most other engines editors. I would say that 5-6 months is pretty fast for a single person to build a map nowadays and I would say that there is plenty right with the tools of Spark if you can build something playable and visually orgasmic in that amount of time for 8v8 sized teams.
Not really, mapping just takes tons and tons of time, if you map fulltime you can make a pretty decent, not yet final version of the map in a month or 2.
Theres a lot more that comes around when mapping then just dragging around cubes.
While it can take a long time to make a map, it is possible to have a playable level within a relatively short period of time (in comparison to the 5-6 month benchmark).
For example, you could very well make a playable level within 11 days. Here is a good read for such a thing. <a href="http://worldofleveldesign.com/categories/level_design_tutorials/how-to-create-playable-level-design-in-11-days.php" target="_blank">http://worldofleveldesign.com/categories/l...-in-11-days.php</a>
Now, while 5-6 months can sound endearing, it is actually quite possible to get yourself very involved in your level while creating. I've caught myself a couple times on a mapping stint, where by the time I take my eyes off the monitor, the sun has already set. It is especially compelling when you gain progress in your level. It is almost like a snowball effect, where the more your level is complete, the more you want to work on it. There is a feeling you get, where you are almost sitting in the back seat, watching your level be created autonomously, and when you finally stop to admire your work, you get a strong sense of " I did that! ".
Oh yes. I miss those times dearly.
It is a hell lot of work. And Spark supports it in every way possible, I dunno if there is even a better tool to make maps for games as complex as NS2...
I have a very good idea of how "professional mappers" work, thats why I'm able to make an informed comment without having used Spark. It's more likely people saying a map takes 6 months have no idea how game art is produced.
A couple of small problems Zex.
First of all, we are not professional mappers, nor is the OP, hence why we are advising at least 6 months. I'm advising more like a year, as it is the OP's first map. We don't have access to concept art, we don't have artists designing our maps or areas, we have to do everything ourselves. In this scenario, for a part-time mapper, 5-6months is not long enough.
Also we have to compete with forever changing gameplay ideas. Most mappers spent some time working on maps, which had to be significantly re-worked when random spawns came in for example.
A professional mapper, with a full art team and such would make a pretty solid beta map in 2-3 months yes, so what? None of the people in this thread, including the OP, are professional mappers. Your original comment is absolutely true in the context of professional development teams, but completely irrelevant to everyone involved in this thread.
You are right, and so is everyone else :)
Now, bearing in mind all stated, do you still think 5-6 months is too long for the OP to complete his FIRST map, NOT a professional mapper?
Mapping is very time consuming.
The tools don't matter that much in this context. What you are producing are lines, vertices, faces, applying textures and so on. What matters with the tools is how easy it is to do this and for this I find Spark amazing. There is much more control on what you do than on the how you will do it compared to hammer's brush based method for example.
To give out some numbers, of ns2_turtle (excluding the RR), which is simpler than UWE's maps on a technical level (and these are number of the current object it does not count all the iterations and modifications done) is composed of:
10040 vertices
16773 lines
7443 faces of witch 5538 are textured
696 light sources
1381 models
79 entities
Which makes a total of 29869 objects. Lets imagine it takes a minute to complete each action it would of took me about 20 days to make the map. But lets face it, it takes more than a minute to make each action and the actions are not linear, it is not like you have an exact idea of where each vertices is and every face you will have to create. Creating a map is a though process. If you are working on the amateur level it is a interactive process, as you start with something simple and gradually transform it and add a richness to it. I just found some of my initial sketches for turtle as I was doing some reorganization at my place.
<img src="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42877240/mappics/sketch.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
As you can see, it has the same idea but it is very different from the turtle you might of played on. I actually started building this layout but was not satisfied with the way it was going and started over, but I did end up reusing the bridge from this version. So a lot of though and iteration has to be put into a map if you are doing it like a painter would construct a painting, or a sculptor a sculpture. In the professional world they do not work like that. An artist will produce concept art and then the level designer will reproduce it as closely as he can and so he doesn't need to imagine the spaces as he works on it. This is probably why it takes much more time for a community mapper. That is also why the greybox is so important for the community mapper because it allows us to imagine the whole and then work on parts, gradually enriching it. It also allows a certain consistency of the whole because you work on things (textures for example) on the whole level when you come to that. Of course things do not always work like that, for example I textured the marine start before I had a greybox for loading, and you can tell loading does not have the same level of finish than the rest of the map because it was 'a step' behind.
What you do have is prefab models and textures - consider you're using a repository of art provided by UW, it's kind of funny to say "do everything ourselves."
hahahaha Zex you're kinda funny too :p
The tools don't matter that much in this context. What you are producing are lines, vertices, faces, applying textures and so on. What matters with the tools is how easy it is to do this and for this I find Spark amazing. There is much more control on what you do than on the how you will do it compared to hammer's brush based method for example.
To give out some numbers, of ns2_turtle (excluding the RR), which is simpler than UWE's maps on a technical level (and these are number of the current object it does not count all the iterations and modifications done) is composed of:
10040 vertices
16773 lines
7443 faces of witch 5538 are textured
696 light sources
1381 models
79 entities
Which makes a total of 29869 objects. Lets imagine it takes a minute to complete each action it would of took me about 20 days to make the map. But lets face it, it takes more than a minute to make each action and the actions are not linear, it is not like you have an exact idea of where each vertices is and every face you will have to create. Creating a map is a though process. If you are working on the amateur level it is a interactive process, as you start with something simple and gradually transform it and add a richness to it. I just found some of my initial sketches for turtle as I was doing some reorganization at my place.
<img src="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42877240/mappics/sketch.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
As you can see, it has the same idea but it is very different from the turtle you might of played on. I actually started building this layout but was not satisfied with the way it was going and started over, but I did end up reusing the bridge from this version. So a lot of though and iteration has to be put into a map if you are doing it like a painter would construct a painting, or a sculptor a sculpture. In the professional world they do not work like that. An artist will produce concept art and then the level designer will reproduce it as closely as he can and so he doesn't need to imagine the spaces as he works on it. This is probably why it takes much more time for a community mapper. That is also why the greybox is so important for the community mapper because it allows us to imagine the whole and then work on parts, gradually enriching it. It also allows a certain consistency of the whole because you work on things (textures for example) on the whole level when you come to that. Of course things do not always work like that, for example I textured the marine start before I had a greybox for loading, and you can tell loading does not have the same level of finish than the rest of the map because it was 'a step' behind.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I love that you drew out your layout. I've attempted to do that hundreds of times to no avail, I'm just not good at it. It's an interesting one, too. Love it.
You can also see in that sketch the though process. The little sketch gave a quick idea of tp and rt placement and the way they relate to each other with a few ideas about what this map is, a spaceship. Then i redid the tp and rt in a bigger scale connected by a fine line, and from there I searched to define the spaces of each area. An issue with this layout was the several bridges which I circled. I ended up not doing this because it was a very symmetrical layout and I wanted to do something more organic with turtle.
When I did start geometry on the version that exists today, I had done enough sketches and things to not redraw a layout and just free formed the spaces. It is also more apparent from this sketch why the map is called turtle :p
Bob, you chose to not stick with symmetry after all and I see that many of the other maps are asymmetrical. Does NS2 not play well with perfect symmetry because of the asymmetry with the two sides? Or does it have more to do with making the overall map gameplay more interesting and unique per room/hallway? Most of my sketches try to maintain symmetry (random spawns). Can I still maintain it with gameplay but differentiate the areas enough visually?
My maps come out completely different :)
Unlike architecture, for us non-professionals, a design is more a a scratchpad, it's a reason to start work on the map. I never stick to my design, but I always try and stick to the principles behind the design. Doesn't matter if it ends up symmetrical or asymmetrical :)
There isn't really a rule for what a good make will be, but basically the way I see it, the more you give the occasion for players to do different things, the more they will appreciate the freedom of action the map gives them.
It also depends what kind of map you want to do. Do you want to do a map where players will have to spread out? do you want a map that encourages players to stay together? Do you want to make a map where scouting for the enemy is important? or do you want the teams to know exactly where the other is, and in that case gives the teams many ways to go at each other?
The asymmetric helps to give more variety of gameplay in the case where teams know where each is.
A map with random spawns could be very symmetrical and still provide a lot of variety, and actually in am working on something like this for my next map.
It really all depends on what kind of experience you want players to have in the map, what kind of tactical possibilities you will offer to them.