Minimalist Challenge

[joe-ilya]

Tuxlar, before you start asking for help on your new mega-cool-and-whatnot project, make sure you have something to show first (screenshots, map downloads, etc). Keep in mind we've already seen thousands of upcoming projects that actually never got done.

[Doomkid]

Well, he does have an overall cool idea here, but I think there might be too much in the way of rules/restrictions. If it were cut down to 32x32 grid only, and 90 degree lines only, I think it would allow authors a lot more creative freedom, while simultaneously guaranteeing a feeling of consistency throughout the maps. (Heh, a funny name for this project could be "Doom The Way Wolfenstein Was" on account of all the straight lines and right angles)

I hope this project takes off, but as is, it's just a little to restricted for me to enter. Best of luck though!!

[scifista42]

I just made a map intro, relatively nice actually, but then I found out that I overlooked the 32-grid first rule and I used various thinner lines and sectors, so I had to simplify the map and now it looks worse a bit. It got me thinking, maybe the very first 32-grid rule would be unnecessary - but okay, let's go minimalistic.

EDIT: Scypek2: Cool "minimalistic" map and great for a quick play, however I'm pretty sure you broke the rules, because I've seen many 2-sided lines which were 64 or 128 or 160 units long, plus the 1st courtyard's border isn't made of rectangles (easily fixable, though).

[Tuxlar]

I did say it was a challenge. I'm starting to find there's a finite amount of practice before you do indeed get comfortable with the constraints, as I expected, but it's certainly more than 15 minutes, having nearly finished my own map. :P

That said, I stand by the rules, for their intended purpose. Rule 1 all but eliminates the temptation of micro editing. Rule 2 minimizes editing complexity; rectangles are about the simplest structure to work with, if you're open to tricks. Rules 3, 6, 7, and 8 keep your rectangles behaved; whatever challenge you can't find a way to implement that rules 4 and 5 don't accommodate, you could do without, for gameplay purposes. Feel free to test this! It is an experiment, after all!

I'll have my own map ready shortly. I'll also play through yours in a bit, Scypek2. Thanks for helping me do SCIENCE!

[scifista42]

Here is a new upload of 96-wide doors, I've added a version of PLAT1.

https://www.sendspace.com/file/8e0769

Also, this is what I get after the whole day of mapping. Highly incomplete still. I'm a slow-mapper. I'm going fully by the rules and haven't taken advantage of any of those geometry exceptions yet. Nothing is wrong there, is it?

[Tuxlar]

Unless my eyesight has gone bad, looks valid to me.

Edit: Never mind. Map coming soon.

Edit Edit: Hang on. Delayed.

[Xaser]

Hrm, the rules here are not the sort that can be easily committed to memory. I prolly wouldn't be able to make anything for this since I'd have to go refer back to the rules constantly, which would stifle whatever creative streak I'd have going.

[Impboy4]

joe-ilya said:

Tuxlar, before you start asking for help on your new mega-cool-and-whatnot project, make sure you have something to show first (screenshots, map downloads, etc). Keep in mind we've already seen thousands of upcoming projects that actually never got done.

joe-ilya, you don't know how to use that tag correctly. This is an idea/experiment; not a project (at least not yet).

[SleepyVelvet]

I did some more science.
I still have 2 wild-card rectangles and 3 160-rectangles left.

http://i.imgur.com/rqyWQIf.jpg

I (possibly missing some and introducing more) hammered out the illegal geometry in my previous layout.

I've found that it's is pretty tough to not make dozens of mistakes by accident. But most mistakes had some sort of fix I could work in after I caught them if I thought about it long enough.

Making a map to these constraints is quite a challenging puzzle.


Also, brace yourself for more instruction nitpicks :)
Rule 3 I assume doesn't apply to the closed, sectorless void embedded in the middle of the map.
Rule 4 should probably include the phrase "instead of 96" to avoid confusion about 96x160 in-most rectangle formations; or you could turn 4 and 5 into indented sub-bullets under Rule 3


Let's commence with the science!

[Tuxlar]

Whew! Took the better part of the day, but I finally pulled mine off:

minchal_tux.wad
Edit: See head post for most recent version.

I'm completely out of energy right now, but I'll be sure to give feedback/replies a bit later. I want to try out a new rule set soon, having seen the results of this one conclusively.

Anyway, this map is beta, skill 4 only, and not tested fully for vanilla just yet (but it SHOULD still work). Enjoy!

[scifista42]

@Tuxlar: Nice work. Fairly challenging (above my casual-player's skills) but I like it, I believe it's well managable and I like challenge. Looks okay and plays well. I've seen a couple bugs: Two barrels inside a wall in the north-western courtyard, and a HOM in the first revenant-escape tunnel, when the second wall close behind you, it has HOM on its back side and you'll see it once you run around. You broke your 32-grid rule with the switch near red door, easily fixed by having the switch more by a side (left or right) of the 96-wide wall. I also suggest to change the brown slime into mud or water, because slime is usually damaging.

[Tuxlar]

scifista42 said:

@Tuxlar: Nice work. Fairly challenging (above my casual-player's skills) but I like it, I believe it's well managable and I like challenge. Looks okay and plays well. I've seen a couple bugs: Two barrels inside a wall in the north-western courtyard, and a HOM in the first revenant-escape tunnel, when the second wall close behind you, it has HOM on its back side and you'll see it once you run around. You broke your 32-grid rule with the switch near red door, easily fixed by having the switch more by a side (left or right) of the 96-wide wall. I also suggest to change the brown slime into mud or water, because slime is usually damaging.

That I did. Which is weird because it was completely unnecessary... :P

Anyway, I'll clean that up and examine the other submission a bit later. For now, here's a rule set update I'm contemplating:
Edit: Removed.

One interesting side note: Due to the rectangle-only geometry in my map, it appears the node structure and the map structure are almost exactly 1:1! Just thought I'd point that out.

[Tuxlar]

Scypek2 said:

I gave it a try. Here's a small map, uses scifista's doors. I don't think you can do much more with this concept.

Sorry for taking so long for feedback. I appreciate the attempt. Besides a few fixable constraint-breakers, a few things to note:
- I liked the use of verticality with the tall red room. It could improve with more uses of those chaingunners/snipers, and maybe also some added some flyers. It's a good use of the constraint to layer the progression of a given area, though.
- More layout complexity in general (via plain corridors, but without introducing outright mazes) could have been added without much trouble, which would have lended a lot to gameplay. The small sample in the middle of the crate room stopped short of offering much of interest, other than a minor revenant ambush.
- Nice music. :P


I'll finish tweaking my own map to completion in a bit. Thanks again for helping me do SCIENCE!

[scifista42]

Up to 2 squares/rectangles may be sized however you like. 2-sided lines in contact with this rectangle may be any length.

Then this should be acceptable, alright? There's just one unlimited square and no other of the exceptions.

[Tuxlar]

scifista42 said:

Then this should be acceptable, alright? There's just one unlimited square and no other of the exceptions.

Yeah, you can use your wildcards to make either 2 large areas, or 2 elongated complex areas (exploiting the non-limited 2s line rule for this). I'm almost considering a size limit of 512, but let's see where we can go with this rule as is.


Anyway, under the new rule set, here's v1.1 of my map, now titled 'UAC Budget Cuts'. Tons of tweaks and fixes; should be more palatable, this time. Still beta, until a bit more testing is done. Enjoy!


Update: Contemplating a new rule for a specific case that seems to arise pretty frequently:

"You are permitted to transform up to 16 occurrences of square, 32 width, solid (1-sided) line pillars into new sectors, despite other constraints."

Not adding it just yet, mind you. The wildcard rules solve a few instances of Rocket Launcher-induced misery, but this rule permits flexibility for more uses of certain girthier (non-boss) monsters. I've noticed mancubii and arachnotrons are very difficult to use properly, with the current rule set.

[scifista42]

"You are permitted to transform up to 16 occurrences of square, 32 width, solid (1-sided) line pillars into new sectors, despite other constraints."

How? Do you mean like to remove them and replace with 32x32 freely editable sectors, to allow more large spaces? Actually I don't like it. Each next of the exception rules complicates the minimalist concept and (kind of) spoils the challenge. Now, there's no longer such a motivation to "use our big sectors wisely", instead there's a dilemma how to effectively use multiple fake pillars. I wouldn't allow this rule, it'll feel weird for a player who already got his mind used to the minimalistic constraints.

[Tuxlar]

scifista42 said:

How? Do you mean like to remove them and replace with 32x32 freely editable sectors, to allow more large spaces?

No, I mean just fill in 32x32 squares; no 'freely editable' shape changing (if that's what you mean...?). You can create some spacious areas with this, but that's why it's limited to 12 16. Without this rule, certain high-tier monster use seems impractical, unless done solely through the wildcards, or else multiple 160 sectors.


Also, here's v1.2 of UAC Budget Cuts. I've further tweaked it to use 12 such sectors, which as you'll see do not create that huge of an effect (I might revert it, even).

I'll hold off on adding the rule for a bit longer, however. Beyond this, I'm pretty sure there won't need to be any further rule updates for the purposes normal doom gameplay (minimalism, by definition, doesn't accommodate well for slaughter-style gameplay, or anything like that).


Edit: Here's v1.3, without such sectors. Also fixed a few errors.

[scifista42]

Tuxlar said:

No, I mean just fill in 32x32 squares;

That actually sounds like "Yes" to my question. Sorry to be unclear when asking. Now: Do all the 2-sided 32-long walls have to touch solid walls, or not?

EDIT: And I have no idea what do you mean by "Filled pillars must not change size" in the OP.

[Tuxlar]

scifista42 said:

That actually sounds like "Yes" to my question. Sorry to be unclear when asking. Now: Do all the 2-sided 32-long walls have to touch solid walls, or not?

2-sided 32-long lines part of such 32-wide pillars would be excepted, by that rule. I've decided not to add the rule, however. Connected 160-wide rectangles can be used to accommodate higher-tier monsters to the same ends (albeit less freely). Plus, it seems inelegant to have that as a sole exception to the 1-sided touching rule, now that I think about it...

Also, v1.3 without such pillars, and some fixes.

[scifista42]

Okay - seems reasonable, thanks.

Your map v1.3: The north-western courtyard is still flawed, there is a sergeant stuck in a barrel and then another barrel stuck inside a wall. Haven't played further yet, to be honest - but it seems that you've managed to even improve the looks since the first version.

[Tuxlar]

Haha, I keep missing that stupid barrel, somehow. Ugh. v1.3a

Xaser said:

Hrm, the rules here are not the sort that can be easily committed to memory. I prolly wouldn't be able to make anything for this since I'd have to go refer back to the rules constantly, which would stifle whatever creative streak I'd have going.

Any logic constraints can be mastered with time, but I understand if it's not initially comfortable. The rectangle-only rule is a bit awkward for certain editing, I found, hence the earlier (minor) rule update:

"All map structures must be formed from rule-abiding squares/rectangles. Identical adjacent sectors made of such rectangles may be fully merged; they need not retain redundant lines."

[scifista42]

Tuxlar said:

"All map structures must be formed from rule-abiding squares/rectangles. Identical adjacent sectors made of such rectangles may be fully merged; they need not retain redundant lines."

This is dangerous, because of controlling the problematique middle-room 2-sided lines which do/don't connect to solid walls, do/don't have the correct length etc.

[Tuxlar]

scifista42 said:

This is dangerous, because of controlling the problematique middle-room 2-sided lines which do/don't connect to solid walls.

If you wanted to be personally safe, it would be recommended to build with explicit rectangles in such risky convergence areas. I should probably mention that.

I'm starting to get proficient at spotting errors, so I wouldn't mind helping with error checking, if it came to it.

[yakfak]

tell me there's not going to be a full megawad of abstract maps with unnecessary bullshit difficulty =P

[Tuxlar]

yakfak said:

tell me there's not going to be a full megawad of abstract maps with unnecessary bullshit difficulty =P

If you're referring to my map, maybe you'd prefer telling me where you're having trouble, specifically. Otherwise, I might risk offense by suggesting you're not cut out for my idea of skill 4, from what I'm guessing you're probably used to.

FDAs work just fine, as well. ;)

[Surreily]

I like making rectangles and putting other rectangles onto them :)

[scifista42]

Surreily said:

http://i.imgur.com/ZYJJsE6l.png

Great job - it looks so much good, considering the rules.

[Tuxlar]

Not bad. I want to look into ways to make nice visuals with the constraints, now.

[scifista42]

I find this design simple and relatively effective for larger areas within constraints. Nothing special yet, I'll see what can I build out of it.



EDIT: And it can be even extended, like this:

[Tuxlar]

That turns out to be a pretty good balance of space and cover. I bet you could get away with (almost) an entire map of only that design, now that I think about it (for the utmost of minimalist purposes, I mean).

If the goal is to simply maximize open space, a grid of 32x32 pillars seems to be the best option. Thin pillars can be a bit annoying for navigation, however, so it's best to use areas like these sparingly.


Update: A few minor updates to my map (v1.4):
- Blunted some 'dickish' moments, slightly.
- Fixed some bugs and HOMs.