Some sort of sourceport mapping debate (split from Teleporting Monsters)

I honestly don't get it why people don't just map for zdoom. What exactly are the benefits of mapping in boom format for the sake of maintaining vanilla support? It's 2017. Get on with the times.

54 minutes ago, hardcore_gamer said:

I honestly don't get it why people don't just map for zdoom. What exactly are the benefits of mapping in boom format for the sake of maintaining vanilla support? It's 2017. Get on with the times.

Mapping in boom instead of ZDoom means prboom+ compatibility, which is one important aspect of the format. Also, something new mappers should consider when trying their hands on their first wads, starting with the basics is really important. Some people mapping in ZDoom format spend a lot of time on things that aren't (directly) gameplay related. All those oh-so-fancy (G)Zdoom features are meaningless when the gameplay is meh, and don't get me started on how often these features are used wrong and at times in even gameplay intrusive ways. Some maps seem more like a tech-demo rather than anything else. That's why going with a supposedly "simpler" mapping format, which yields playable results more quickly, is the more efficient method of learning what mapping in regards to gameplay works like.

Also, "get on with the times" he says, while still downloading, discussing and playing wads for a game that's decades old...

2 hours ago, hardcore_gamer said:

I honestly don't get it why people don't just map for zdoom. What exactly are the benefits of mapping in boom format for the sake of maintaining vanilla support? It's 2017. Get on with the times.

I think something you're neglecting to acknowledge is accessibility. Most modern source ports support Boom, and a fairly large portion of players prefer to play in PRBoom+ and other Boom related source ports. Mapping in Boom makes your map accessible to pretty much everyone. My playing preference is GZDoom, but I map in Boom format for this reason. Another thing I'd like to note is how the limitations of mapping like this make you think about how to accomplish certain things creatively, which is fun and rewarding.

Well, anyone's free to map with whatever format that you want. Mapping is all about creativity by using actions in a clever and fun way as Lo_Mein said. Limitations for each format doesn't mean that you'll have few options for it and many mapsets proved it. 

15 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Mapping in boom instead of ZDoom means prboom+ compatibility, which is one important aspect of the format.

What makes it important? The only thing of value I can think about that prboom does is allowing you to play demos, a feature that very few people outside of the hardcore doom community use.

15 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Also, something new mappers should consider when trying their hands on their first wads, starting with the basics is really important.

The basics of zdoom mapping aren't very different from using boom format. Sure there is a bit more complexity but nothing that is going to scare people away. That being said I can see the case for making your first couple of maps in boom format before moving on to zdoom UDMF.

15 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

All those oh-so-fancy (G)Zdoom features are meaningless when the gameplay is meh

Zdoom allows you to create better gameplay in the first place. More advanced features and scripting gives the level designer greater control over his map which allows him to create more advanced gameplay. For example, it's not possible to create a E1M8 style level where sectors lower/change as a result of specific monsters dying if you are just using boom, but in zdoom this is very easy to do with a simple script. Once you learn how to use scripting (which is not as hard as it first seems) you will never go back.

15 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Some maps seem more like a tech-demo rather than anything else. That's why going with a supposedly "simpler" mapping format, which yields playable results more quickly, is the more efficient method of learning what mapping in regards to gameplay works like.

Making maps in boom is faster because you are making inferior maps. You think Id would not used zdoom style mapping features had they had access to them at the time? "Classic" level design is a byproduct of technical limitations, not intentional design choice. I agree that zdoom features can be used in gimmicky ways, but when used well they can allow for far better gameplay than would be possible otherwise.

15 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Also, "get on with the times" he says, while still downloading, discussing and playing wads for a game that's decades old...

Failed anology. Doom is a game and games that are good stay good. Doom isn't a worse game than Doom 3 just because it's older.

14 hours ago, Lo_Mein said:

I think something you're neglecting to acknowledge is accessibility. Most modern source ports support Boom, and a fairly large portion of players prefer to play in PRBoom+ and other Boom related source ports.

They do this for the same reason there still exists a handful of people that would rather use a typewritter than a computer. It's just a stubborn form of conservatism. Boom ports offer no meaningful advantages over zdoom based ports except maybe for recording and playing demos. I also find it questionable if most doom players use boom based ports instead of zdoom. When Joel held his Doom contest he used zdoom even though he did not make it a rule you had to map for zdoom format.

14 hours ago, Lo_Mein said:

Another thing I'd like to note is how the limitations of mapping like this make you think about how to accomplish certain things creatively, which is fun and rewarding.

Why fight with one hand behind the back when you can just use both your hands?

17 hours ago, hardcore_gamer said:

I honestly don't get it why people don't just map for zdoom. What exactly are the benefits of mapping in boom format for the sake of maintaining vanilla support? It's 2017. Get on with the times.

Because Real Men Map Only For Vanilla^TM? I thought we settled that long ago. Duh. :]

...ZDoom sissy. *frowns*

22 minutes ago, hardcore_gamer said:

What makes it important? The only thing of value I can think about that prboom does is allowing you to play demos, a feature that very few people outside of the hardcore doom community use.

Uncapped framerates in PrBoom+ are also a nice feature to have. Also demos are important for mappers, if they want feedback for their maps. Written feedback is one thing, seeing a person play your map is another, and the difference is huge. Downplaying the importance of demos by limiting their importance to a select few people is not something you should be doing, because it's straight up wrong.

22 minutes ago, hardcore_gamer said:

The basics of zdoom mapping aren't very different from using boom format. Sure there is a bit more complexity but nothing that is going to scare people away. That being said I can see the case for making your first couple of maps in boom format before moving on to zdoom UDMF

It's not about scaring people away, neither is it about complexity to begin with, it's about learning mapping in convenient, bite sized steps, because that's when you learn to identify what features are best used for what situation. Also, boom yields faster results, which actually IS important for new mappers, because if it takes too long to finish something, people get frustrated over it and loose interest in continuing their work. So yes, the supposed simplicity of boom has merit to it.

22 minutes ago, hardcore_gamer said:

 

Making maps in boom is faster because you are making inferior maps. You think Id would not used zdoom style mapping features had they had access to them at the time? "Classic" level design is a byproduct of technical limitations, not intentional design choice. I agree that zdoom features can be used in gimmicky ways, but when used well they can allow for far better gameplay than would be possible otherwise

And I'm calling straight up bullshit on this one, because many of the cacoward winning sets have been mapped with boom compatibility in mind. Valiant, Ancient Aliens and SunLust all are made in boom format, and you are talking out of your ass here by deeming these maps inferior to Zdoom maps when in fact their gameplay is absolutely outstanding. What Id would or would not have done is uninteresting at this point in time, because by the same token I could comfortably argue that Id would have mapped in boom if that format was available back in their days.

But just to slam it into your face while I can, remember tech gone bad? The map John Romero made rather recently? Guess what? He didn't map in ZDoom format. Funny, don't you think?

22 minutes ago, hardcore_gamer said:

Failed anology. Doom is a game and games that are good stay good. Doom isn't a worse game than Doom 3 just because it's older.

I think you're in no position tell me where I failed at, when your shortsightedness is so obvious. By the same token I can argue boom is a good mapping format in spite of being old. So... What was your point again real quick?

22 minutes ago, hardcore_gamer said:

They do this for the same reason there still exists a handful of people that would rather use a typewritter than a computer. It's just a stubborn form of conservatism. Boom ports offer no meaningful advantages over zdoom based ports except maybe for recording and playing demos. I also find it questionable if most doom players use boom based ports instead of zdoom. When Joel held his Doom contest he used zdoom even though he did not make it a rule you had to map for zdoom format.

Of course boom ports offer meaningful advantages. How blind are you actually? Of course someone used ZDoom as a port when there's a chance that people map in hexen format, for example, instead of vanilla or boom, because PrBoom+ can't run hexen format, in case you didn't know.

22 minutes ago, hardcore_gamer said:

Why fight with one hand behind the back when you can just use both your hands?

Why not?

41 minutes ago, hardcore_gamer said:

You think Id would not used zdoom style mapping features had they had access to them at the time? "Classic" level design is a byproduct of technical limitations, not intentional design choice.

Being that they were themselves the developers of the game, they had access to whichever features they thought of and felt were necessary to add, within reason. They put things in the game as they needed them. When they were creating Doom II, Sandy Petersen didn't have to say "I've got this great idea for a new monster called the Archvile, I hope DECORATE gets invented soon!"

Hardcore_gamer, are you doing some kind of competition where you try to be wrong about as many things as possible?

So far the main arguments against using zdoom are:

Argument 1: Because people have made good maps without zdoom.

Argument 2: It's easier to learn using boom.

The first argument is stupid because nobody said it's not possible to build good maps without zdoom. My point was that not using zdoom holds you back from making better ones. By your logic all advances in gaming tech are pointless because the earlier ones are "good enough". So what if Tech gone bad uses boom format? Had it used zdoom format and taken full advantage of it, it would have been even better. People also don't seem to understand that zdoom features aren't just visual, but also allow you to create more complex gameplay and give more options for level design. It's not just slopes and superficial scripts.

The second argument only holds for beginners. More advanced mappers would be better of just switching to zdoom.

44 minutes ago, hardcore_gamer said:

So far the main arguments against using zdoom are:

 

Argument 1: Because people have made good maps without zdoom.

Argument 2: It's easier to learn using boom.

 

The first argument is stupid because nobody said it's not possible to build good maps without zdoom. My point was that not using zdoom holds you back from making better ones. By your logic all advances in gaming tech are pointless because the earlier ones are "good enough". So what if Tech gone bad uses boom format? Had it used zdoom format and taken full advantage of it, it would have been even better. People also don't seem to understand that zdoom features aren't just visual, but also allow you to create more complex gameplay and give more options for level design. It's not just slopes and superficial scripts.

 

The second argument only holds for beginners. More advanced mappers would be better of just switching to zdoom.

Your arguments are nonsensical.

When I played Sunlust and Ancient Aliens I didn't think "wow, if only these had used ZDoom features, then they would be truly great". A great artist can create great art with any tools, but they will still get along best with the toolset and workflow that they prefer and are closely familiar with.

It's not a matter of beginner mapping, in fact I'd argue the opposite. In the same way that mapping for Doom is measurably faster than mapping for a truly 3D game like Quake, mapping is faster for Boom and vanilla because their smaller feature sets mean that once you know the ropes, the most important functions are conveniently accessible and you can create functional levels very quickly. ZDoom's complexity (even things like parameterized line actions) adds time and hassle to something that can be a very simple muscle-memory operation.

The beauty of it is that just as you can make maps the way you want to make them, other mappers can make maps the way they want to make them. Nothing is stopping them. The option of using any source port is already available to mappers, so your argument seemingly becomes that people who don't want to use your port of choice are foolish and should be expected to do things your preferred way for some reason.

Anyway, um, please stop derailing this thread about monster teleports. Thanks.

edit: Okay, looking back on just how much of a derail this has been, I've split it off into a new thread to clear up the original one.

Heh, this reminds me of when I made Confinement 256 a set of vanilla maps that use ZDoom's MAPINFO, and I got shit for that from someone who suggested to just use Boom or whatever :P

I agree though, you should map however you want and not care about whether it would be better in a different source port. I know TONS of WADs where the intended evoked feelings of them was made that much more impressive given the fact that it was made in something that isn't (G)ZDoom. Batman Doom is one of the best DeHackED TCs I've ever seen! Made for Boom, no DECORATE there. Trinity College and Linguica's Cornell Box were both made in vanilla, and look at how good those are. You don't need ZDoom format to make something even half as interesting or enjoyable.

In short, ZDoom is not better than any other format.

@hardcore_gamer It isn't a matter of 'getting with the times'. People enjoy doom for many different reasons. for some its looking at interesting, detailed levels. for some its doing slaughter maps and killing hordes of monsters. for some its advanced mapping techniques, and for some, its keeping the  game as close to vanilla as possible. Boom, and to another extent Prboom+ both maintain that feeling of a vanillia doom, without all the restrictions that made it annoying (Please try the TNT Map 'Habitat" in complete vanilla doom with all the restrictions. You'll actually notice that in a certain area, if you look across the room, the game will CRASH. in a limit removing port, that error no longer occurs.)

Some people dont want an advanced game. they want the doom they grew up with and love, just the way it is, without worrying about the game crashing everytime they look at something from the wrong angle.

@hardcore_gamer You're clearly the type of person that thinks everyone should think what you think. The fact that you answered your own question in your opening comment (To maintain vanilla support) proves that it's something you dont personally want, and you feel everyone should feel that way.

Basically, Xyzzy is right. Zdoom is not better than any other format, just as boom is not better than any other format. its all about preference. I've seen people make incredible maps with boom, and while yes they might possibly be able to make it better, or make it easier with zdoom, it keeps it open to both crowds (Zdoom users can play boom maps, but boom users cannot play zdoom maps with zdoom features.)

50 minutes ago, hardcore_gamer said:

So far the main arguments against using zdoom are:

 

Argument 1: Because people have made good maps without zdoom.

Argument 2: It's easier to learn using boom.

 

The first argument is stupid because nobody said it's not possible to build good maps without zdoom. My point was that not using zdoom holds you back from making better ones. By your logic all advances in gaming tech are pointless because the earlier ones are "good enough". So what if Tech gone bad uses boom format? Had it used zdoom format and taken full advantage of it, it would have been even better. People also don't seem to understand that zdoom features aren't just visual, but also allow you to create more complex gameplay and give more options for level design. It's not just slopes and superficial scripts.

 

The second argument only holds for beginners. More advanced mappers would be better of just switching to zdoom.

I seriously wonder if at some point you made a habit out of not understanding other points of views or objective facts.

The moment you map in ZDoom, you've eliminated a somewhat popular sourceport from working with your map. That already is something that qualifies as a negative. One of the reasons so many people use GZDoom as a source port is that they don't need to worry about the format the map is made with, it's convenience for the most part, and it doesn't say anything about which mapping format is better.

The first argument is anything but stupid, because time has proven that people can make outstanding maps without any ZDoom related features. That being said, these boom maps function perfectly fine without any Zdoom-isms and they also look nice and clean visually, which consequentially means that ZDoom specific features aren't important at all when it comes to good mapping/gameplay.

If Zdoom is all that great and awesome, I'm gonna be sealioning here and demand that you show me a ZDoom based map(set) that is objectively better than all of the best boom-format maps/sets known at this point in time in every respect. At the end of the day, stuff needs to play well, and I could comfortably point you to several (G)ZDoom mapsets which are objectively inferior to sets like ie SunLust in terms of gameplay for one reason or another. I'm not gonna do that though, because it would be rude towards the mappers in question, but the fact of the matter is that these examples are out there, and there's many of them.

I don't need you to tell me what I do and do not understand, especially not when I've been testing YukiRaven's "Shadows of the nightmare realm" quite extensively, which by the way is a GZDoom mapset. One thing you might want to understand is that practically none of the boom format related features add much, if anything at all to visuals. ZDoom's features that are related to mechanics aren't necessarily that superior either. What it really boils down to is how these features are being used, and more often that not this is an aspect that is different based on the situation at hand.

As a side note: Advanced mappers don't need you to tell them what they're better off working with.

1 hour ago, hardcore_gamer said:

So far the main arguments against using zdoom are:

Nobody is arguing that you shouldn't map in UDMF/whatever format. People can map in whatever they want. Your arguing against widely recognised and agreed upon artistic notions like 'restrictions breed creativity', or choosing the correct tools for efficiency's sake show that you don't know what the hell you're talking about and that you should lurk more and that you should stop telling people how they should map.

Who gives a shit if a particular mapping format has more advanced things like 3d architecture or scripting? Those things don't innately make your maps better. Ancient Aliens or Sunlust wouldn't have automatically become better had they have been designed in a more advanced format. There's such a minuscule difference between gameplay designed with script and gameplay designed with sectors and tags that only people who need to optimise their maps to such a point (i.e. people making their maps to a professional standard) should ever pay attention to it.

Its disappointing that some people have to result to vile, pitiful insults in this thread in order to try to upset the OP. Yes, he may not have had the best idea making a thread like this, but theres no need to outright abuse him.

Guys like hardcore_moaner here make me sorta want to just make vanilla maps forever.

Would anyone happen to know if Ancient Aliens and Valiant require zdoom? or are they boom compatible? Because they are some of the most beautiful, detailed maps i've ever seen.

2 minutes ago, Phade102 said:

Would anyone happen to know if Ancient Aliens and Valiant require zdoom? or are they boom compatible? Because they are some of the most beautiful, detailed maps i've ever seen

Both boom

3 minutes ago, Phade102 said:

Would anyone happen to know if Ancient Aliens and Valiant require zdoom? or are they boom compatible? Because they are some of the most beautiful, detailed maps i've ever seen.

They are boom compatible wads.

1 minute ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Both boom

To me, that simple fact proves @hardcore_gamer wrong on all his points.

AA and Valiant are built for boom ports, I believe. I don't think they actually work in vanilla boom, but they work in the majority of current ports.

They do have extra features for ports like ZDoom and Eternity though, mostly just setting map info and the like.

EDIT: AAAAAAAAAA

please. fucking IPB. Get a fucking "someone else posted" warning.

2 minutes ago, InsanityBringer said:

AA and Valiant are built for boom ports, I believe. I don't think they actually work in vanilla boom, but they work in the majority of current ports.

 

They do have extra features for ports like ZDoom and Eternity though, mostly just setting map info and the like.

 

EDIT: AAAAAAAAAA

please. fucking IPB. Get a fucking "someone else posted" warning.

*pats your head* It's okay, even if the answers are all the same, they're all appreciated!

I can do maps for vanilla as well as for advanced sourceports such as GZDoom. And complaining the format or doing maps just for the sake of being vanilla-compatible is pretty much pointless to me. I can enjoy vanilla-compatible which has some amazing gameplay just by using simple actions...I mean, come on!!!

15 minutes ago, Phade102 said:

To me, that simple fact proves @hardcore_gamer wrong on all his points.

I wouldn't go as far as saying he's 100% wrong in regards to ZDoom offering more options than, say, boom for example. My take on it is that more often than not these advanced features aren't meaningful, because they're used in non-meaningful ways.

If you look at things like actual 3D floors as you can see them a lot in sotnr, that is actually a meaningful feature, if it is put to good use. Hiding a shoot switch behind stairs like in quake for example is something boom can't do just like that, since it doesn't work with actual 3D floors. Boom needs to resort to faux-3D trickery, for example. The real question is though, how much of an improvement would such a shoot-switch actually be, when there's a myriad of other ways to hide a secret? Is it different? Absolutely. Is it objectively better? Hard to tell...

Sticking with sotnr, in map02 you have a hitscanner ledge in an outside area which has two floors. That's where a feature has been used in a meaningful way, because it adds something to the experience, especially since sotnr requires mouselook. Does that make sotnr02 overall better than a good boom format map in terms of gameplay just because of how this feature has been used? I'd argue it doesn't. By no means do I mean say anything good or bad about the quality of YukiRaven's set by poiting this out, but I actually do not see where the appeal of this is so huge that it would elevate any boom-format set to the most amazing heights of gameplay, when you can accomplish similar experiences with clever use of map geometry even in vanilla format maps.

If you want another example of ZDoom based trickery, have a look at Tarakannik3. Some of the maps in this kind of niche set use features in interesting ways, which sets it apart from chillax (which actually also is a ZDoom based set that is "forced" into boom) for example. Is Tarakanik3 overall better because of this? Not necessarily.

What I mean to say is that, if you're competent at using a specific mapping format so you can take advantage of its features, you can create something unique if you employ these features well, but that doesn't make any (G)ZDoom based map better than any other boom map or vice versa.

From my point of view, Hardcore_gamer is lowballing the advantages that come with the boom format, while overestimating the advantages of (G)ZDoom based mapping. Especially the aspect of accessibility is huge, because there will always be more new mappers than experienced ones. And if new mappers feel forced to make maps in (G)ZDoom format from the get go by way of "community induced pressure", there's a good chance most of them will stop trying before even finishing their second or third map, let alone megawads, and that is a huge drawback in and off itself already.

5 hours ago, hardcore_gamer said:

Making maps in boom is faster because you are making inferior maps.

You're saying boom, so I assume it's -complevel 9 or minus. There are so many superior maps even in -complevel 2. Probably this is not a way to compare though. BtSX is a -complevel 2 map set, if you think this is inferior, I don't know what to say.

I think I shouldn't say this, but I wanted to say it anyway. This reminds me of the "Plasma Rifle vs BFG" and "Plasma Rifle vs Chaingun" debates.

I'm just laughing that these discussions still exist on this forum. I thought all points were already made 10 years ago.

3 hours ago, esselfortium said:

ZDoom's complexity (even things like parameterized line actions) adds time and hassle to something that can be a very simple muscle-memory operation.

I'd like to say that this is kinda a dishonest opinion nowadays. Once you get into the swing of it, putting together the basic stuff in ZDoom formats works itself into muscle memory, too, especially since map editors like GZDoom Builder uses a combination of text input fields and drop-down boxes for a lot of those line actions, which default to Doom-styled values for the Generic series of actions. So if you want to make a door in UDMF, you just have find Generic_Door and tap in the activator settings, which is usually "player presses use," "repeatable action," and "monster presses use." Or just "player presses use" and "repeatable action" if the map's set to use LaxMonsterActivation. And if you want to door to move faster or not shut after opening, all you have to do is use the drop-down to find several useful constants for those.

I mean, sure that's objectively more complex than what it takes to map for Boom, but it's not actually all that more complex than using the genericalized special editor nor is it really something that you can't develop muscle memory for. I'll grant you that a lot of this is pretty reliant on having a good editor available, though - it'd take so much more effort to get into the swing of ZDoom mapping without those constants, or stuff like the flag picker window for stuff like Sector_Set3DFloor, or all those niceties that just remove a whole ton of bouncing from the editor to the wiki and back again.

22 minutes ago, Memfis said:

I'm just laughing that these discussions still exist on this forum. I thought all points were already made 10 years ago.

To be fair, hardcore_gamer might've been but a wee toddler ten years ago, if he's who I think he is.