What do you think about border sectors?

[gaspe]

In some cases they can look good and make sense but most of the time they are unnecessary, especially if they don't have height variations, and give a less refined look.

Spoiler

 

[elend]

In my opinion they can indeed help gameplay by distinguishing certain elements in a map. Lifts, stairs, etc. The lack of hight variation is only somethimes a bit strange, most of the time I enjoy flat border sectors. If you'd add a hight variation absolutely everywhere it actually might get too messy.

[Memfis]

I guess these borders aim to smooth the contrasts between textures of different colors, but stark contrasts are one of the defining features of Doom's aesthetic, so in a lot of cases it's a big mistake to use them.

[Cynical]

I loooooooove me some border sectors.  They create lines that show off shapes better than leaving things unbordered.

[Aquila Chrysaetos]

I think of it as a transition from one material to another, which is how I tend to use them. It makes it a little neater.

Height variation is nice, but I think it shouldn't always be used.

[Deadwing]

It's not something I do much, but it's cute.

Not sure if having height difference is a good thing gameplay wise though (although it definetly looks better)

[Dragonsbrethren]

I’m definitely not a fan of them when they’re bumpy. Flat borders tend to look bad with the stock textures, with a few exceptions, but they can really improve the look of an area when using custom textures. Also care needs to be taken to minimize line wiggle, another reason why trying to border with stock flats is a bad idea.

 

Like many things,  “it depends”. 

[Novaseer]

Sometimes, when I use border sectors, there's only a slight height variation (say, less than 8 units).

It makes it look better than there being no height variation, but it makes it less messy than a full 8+ unit step.

For example: take a picture from the spawn room of XMAP03 of the WIP Depths of Insanity:

In this case, there's only one unit's difference between the floor and the border, but it's noticeable enough (if you were using Chocolate Doom or similar, you probably wouldn't see it, but in this case it's excusable as the WAD doesn't support it).

[Ribbiks]

unnecessary is in the eye of the beholder, no? I hold the following beliefs simultaneously:

1) I really like how strong borders look

2) they're often used as a crutch that allow you to make an area look "good"/polished without really thinking critically about it

 

38 minutes ago, Memfis said:

I guess these borders aim to smooth the contrasts between textures of different colors, but stark contrasts are one of the defining features of Doom's aesthetic, so in a lot of cases it's a big mistake to use them.

 

but what if you use them to do the exact opposite? ;D

 

Spoiler

 

[Marcaek]

I'd rather have a flat floor than a bumpy one most of the time. I'd like to see more people who do floor borders use height transfers to make them technically level with the surrounding floor so you dont jump up when you're at the edge of a room.

 

Also, floor borders less than 8px tall are actually more disruptive because they grab a player moving over them in a weird way.

[Novaseer]

17 minutes ago, Marcaek said:

I'd rather have a flat floor than a bumpy one most of the time. I'd like to see more people who do floor borders use height transfers to make them technically level with the surrounding floor so you dont jump up when you're at the edge of a room.

 

Also, floor borders less than 8px tall are actually more disruptive because they grab a player moving over them in a weird way.

I never got that issue in my playtests. Did GZDoom patch out that behaviour?

[durian]

I think they can really enhance area, if used judiciously, but more often they seem to be slapped in without too much thought, and tend - if anything - to make the area look worse. But they're great when done well - a useful tool for enhancing lines and guiding the players' eyes, and making things look sleek and stylised.

 

Random border thoughts:

- Three significant variables are width, height, and texture - small differences in these can make for big differences in appearance, so getting things to look right can involve some fine tweaking.

- I prefer them to be the same height as the floor - the little stepped ones often look a bit silly to me.

- A shadow border - that is, one that does nothing but darken the light level - can be very effective.

- I tend to prefer wall-borders to floor-borders.

[tib_]

i guess they can be okay, i think they are easily overused though. Too many border sectors gives the level a sort of pastel look which is goofy in doom

[kb1]

They look pretty darn good in those screenshots. My only beef is when occasionally they make pickups a bit funky to pick up, especially when the borders are small. So I guess the formula is (aesthetic value - gameplay annoyance).

[Urthar]

Thinking of them in terms of being merely 'border sectors' will almost certainly lead you to use them badly. They can have a variety of purposes, but it's the purpose that's important, whether it's delineating an edge, showing a wall has thickness, creating a natural looking transistion between terrain types, or any number of other things.

 

If I need to simplify a scene, then they tend to be one of the first things I'll strip out.

[kmxexii]

Sometimes it looks cool and sometimes it doesn't but I never find myself thinking "This border sector work is astounding, I must remember to mention it" or "Holy Moses this border sector work stinks, I must remember to mention it".

Edited August 1, 2018 by kmxexii

[Catpho]

I didn't even know those types of sectors had a name. How ignorant of me. 

[Misty]

For me, sector borders are associated with modern and clean design. Older wads use less sector borders, mostly where is crucial to separate both textures. 

[riderr3]

Border sectors is kind of next-gen mapping, but not necessary useful everytime.