Why do people still map in Boom format?

I think you should read that title.

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, Graf Zahl said:

Imagine where mapping could be if the most demo compatible engine had subscribed to some careful expansion of its feature set instead of just preserving the status quo...

PZDoom, the port that plays cl2 demos, but also puts tacky glow effects on liquid FLATs. Coming this summer.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Purely cosmetic additions such as your tacky glow effects aren't impossible for GLBoom+; it has had quite a few already after all. (Well, not glow effects per se, but cosmetic stuff. High res textures, detail textures, music changers, etc.) What it won't get is new mapping options.

 

 

Anyway, a better question IMO would be why are people still using the Hexen format. The Doom/Boom format makes sense for the ports it can reach. A Doom map in Hexen format will be for ZDoom only, however, and so it doesn't make sense not to use UDMF instead.

Edited by Gez
1 person likes this

Posted (edited)

Share this post


Link to post

the extended linedef specials are powerful and extremely easy to implement

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Boom format is my favorite format to map for. It's like the perfect middle ground between classic doom map format and some of the advanced zdoom map formats. For example: using voodoo doll "scripts", like AD said is relatively simple, compared to actual scripting with Zdoom map formats.

 

1 hour ago, Graf Zahl said:

Instead, we are still stuck with a 19 year old standard that's simpler to use as the most widely accepted baseline. :(

 

FTFY

Spoiler

People will choose a simpler format to map with, wether you like it or not.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, an expansion of prboom-plus would be awesome. It's really quite silly how its arbitrary limitations dictate what is and what isn't done by a lot of extremely talented people. Instead of creating tons of cool original stuff mappers spend time on ridiculous things like removing monster idle frames so that they could have another new enemy. At least implement unlimited dehacked, mapinfo, what else...

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Demos have been the biggest reason I've stuck with Boom so long... but youtube is a thing now so it's not like demos are the only way to share runs anymore.

Share this post


Link to post

Because advanced ports are for sissies, no? Anyone?

 

18 minutes ago, Memfis said:

At least implement unlimited dehacked, mapinfo

*cough* DOOM RETRO *cough*

Share this post


Link to post

Examples of things that could easily join a "Boom+" format without requiring any new rendering features nor changes in the movement code.

  • Linked sectors. Eternity has them. One sector moves, and those that are linked to it move with it. Allows to create, for example, detailed lifts that don't break in absurd parts when some of its constituent sectors are blocked.
  • Synchronized stair builders. The effect originates from Hexen but it could work for Doom stairbuilders as well. Later steps move faster so that they all reach their target height at the same time. Allows for faster gameplay as the player doesn't need to wait for the last few steps to finally get high enough.
  • Fixed Boom specials. There are some Boom specials that, by oversight and lack of test, just plain don't work.  Example 1, Example 2.

Share this post


Link to post

ARGH WHY DOESN'T EVERYONE USE EVERY MODDING FEATURE EVER THIS IS STUPID

 

Snark aside, the best thing about Doom mapping these days really is the choice. I've mapped a fair bit in vanilla format; am unlikely to go UDMF at any point soon, but since I've been considering Boom for future projects I wouldn't rule it out entirely. But WHY DO PEOPLE STILL MAP IN BOOM, etc.

 

Also, newbie, small request: could your further discussion topics not be limited to the content of their topic titles? Just a personal request from me, cheers. :P

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Jayextee said:

Also, newbie, small request: could your further discussion topics not be limited to the content of their topic titles? Just a personal request from me, cheers. :P

I would have done that but what could i have said more?Why do a big ammount of human beings create maps for the popular game series called Doom which was made by id software in the Boom format instead of another format like the ZDoom format or the GZDoom format?

Share this post


Link to post

Other stuff that could easily be done without any effect on demo compatibility would be some MAPINFO-like level progression definition or some simple actor definition format (i.e. DECORATE lite)

 

I wouldn't ever expect that PrBoom could or should get Hexen format support, but even with the plain old Doom format there'd still be lots and lots of things that could get done without introducing any kind of instability. The operative term here is 'careful expansion'. Right now all we have is standstill.

 

Ironic that some of the so-called 'tacky' stuff got added, but nothing substantive.

 

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, SOSU said:

I would have done that but what could i have said more?

 

Dunno, if you're genuinely curious instead of being (as I took it) "ew, old stuff", stating that would be a start. I guess.

 

4 minutes ago, Graf Zahl said:

Other stuff that could easily be done without any effect on demo compatibility would be some MAPINFO-like level progression definition or some simple actor definition format (i.e. DECORATE lite)

 

For the longest time I've wanted basic MAPINFO functionality to be the standard. Proper episodic Doom II maps -- who wouldn't want that AMIRITE

Share this post


Link to post

Well,some fresh air in boom format would be good. I know stability is in the first place,but one or two features,which could make mapping easier, won't destroy boom mapping soul or  code (I hope it won't destroy). 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

 

Nothing against Boom, but isn't it sad that PrBoom has been the sole obstacle to further advancement for too many years now?

Imagine where mapping could be if the most demo compatible engine had subscribed to some careful expansion of its feature set instead of just preserving the status quo...

 

Instead, we are still stuck with a 19 year old standard as the most widely accepted baseline. :(

 

It did expand the feature set.  Sky transfers in -cl 9, high-res textures (in glboom, at least), and mp3/ogg music come to mind instantly.

 

Right now all we have is standstill.

When Valiant came out, it required a dev version of prboom-plus to run, since it was using newly-supported MBF features.  That's not standstill.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

People go with the flow. It's also harder to make a decent advanced port map that uses modern features than a prboom map that uses generalized lines for simple transformations and the like.

Share this post


Link to post

I do almost all of my mapping in vanilla format. I like creating stuff that feels like an extension of the source material. I think it's great that other people are making environments with loads of custom textures and crazy line actions and all that shit but it's not what I make because it's generally lower on my "I want to play this" list. I haven't tired of the appeal of the iwads and turf that feels cut from the same cloth.

 

4 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

isn't it sad that PrBoom has been the sole obstacle to further advancement for too many years now?

Holy crap, so you're telling me ZDoom (and many other ports) haven't been making continual upgrades and changes over the last 19 years? Fuck me I had no idea

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Considering how many people tell others to use various hacks over formats that'll only be playable by a smaller selection of ports, those can certain feel completely irrelevant at times.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

Nothing stops people can making two different versions of a map for different ports but people generally prefer not to go through all the trouble to do so.

Share this post


Link to post

UDMF is too open ended to teach yourself an important foundation with which to become a well rounded mapper.

 

This is why there are so many instances of "zdoomisms", when a person starts out in that level of complexity, the paths they can take are so broad they fall into the trap of using advanced features in maps that are missing the most important gameplay elements and end up fundamentally flawed for the sake of visuals or gimmicks.

 

I spent about a year and a half exploring just the features I felt were important in PrBoom+ to the tune of over 1000 hours spent making over 70 maps in the format before I felt it was time to move on to UDMF. I made sure to use every map in my own projects and in the vast array of community projects I participated in to learn one new feature or gameplay type.

 

Even after that, my first two UDMF format maps suffered from too much resource use and therefore low framerates.

 

However, as of right now I have 20 UDMF format maps complete and I am using each one to explore new features both in map and technical (mostly in map changes and intermissions) to slowly and carefully grow, using very select and tasteful features in each one that add something meaningful and fun.

Edited by Pinchy
5 people like this

Posted (edited)

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Memfis said:

Instead of creating tons of cool original stuff mappers spend time on ridiculous things like removing monster idle frames so that they could have another new enemy. At least implement unlimited dehacked, mapinfo, what else...

Though I would echo most of what people have said in the defense of Boom mapping, I do agree with this. While I'm not interested in most of ZDoom's and Hexen format's mapping features, I think Decorate is really important as a simple way to extend the amount of content available. I appreciate that Heretic's total lack of a Boom mapping format has given me the option to do "pseudo-Boom" mapping and use Decorate as needed rather than having to worry about whether/how to deal with adding monsters and such..

Edited by Not Jabba

Posted (edited)

Share this post


Link to post

BooM Format is generally something nice to have around (and is pretty user-friendly) for compatibility with most other ports. I think it simplifies mapping to an extent, but forces other means when wanting to use other features (like separate color maps for water, fake floors/ceiling, etc.) that are not as trivial to construct as they are in Hexen/UDMF formats (usually through simple scripts, actions, or properties). Dehacked only goes so far in as far as what can be done with monsters/items/decorations/et cetera, so anything more than simple modifications is easily outdone by Decorate's capability.

As far as what I like to do, I usually like mapping in BooM format for Single-Player/Cooperative/Survival maps I make primarily for compatibility reasons. For a not-so recent project I've been slowly chipping away at, I do like to keep the idea of a ZDooM/Zandronum version in mind at the back of my head mainly for advanced features such as Skyboxes, 3d Floors and Bridges, Slopes, and Decorate/Dehacked for anything else that I cannot execute well in BooM. As for PvP maps, I usually stick to Hexen format or UDMF format because of the availability of 3D-Floors for new and otherwise impossible layouts, ACS for new functions, Skyboxes (gotta love SpaceEngine), and all of the other linedef actions and functions that are shared/unique to those respective formats.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Argent Agent said:

BooM Format is generally something nice to have around (and is pretty user-friendly) for compatibility with most other ports. I think it simplifies mapping to an extent, but forces other means when wanting to use other features (like separate color maps for water, fake floors/ceiling, etc.) that are not as trivial to construct as they are in Hexen/UDMF formats (usually through simple scripts, actions, or properties).

I agree. I don't know why so many people say "boom is easy" versus zdoom (doom in hexen) format. Boom format requires a ton of dicking around to accommodate things easily done easy game easy life in more "advanced" formats. Why should I screw around with voodoo doll conveyor belts when I can achieve the same thing with a simple line of acs? It's only "easier" because it's what people have done longer. Zdoom formats allow mappers to be incredibly lazy to achieve the same effects, I don't know how boom format is easier. Maybe easier only in simplistic stuff but realistically it's the same amount of effort in any format. Once you start trying to do cool things, precise timings and effects though... it comes down to what you're used to, not what format is perceived as "objectively" easier.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

I have been mostly a UDMF mapper.

Boom is great for learning the basics of mapping, but then there is only so much it can do.

 

The only reason for me to use Boom or Vanilla now is because most Community projects require it.

The only thing Boom has over most modern ports is demo compatibility and speed-running tricks.

 

Its the difference of:

" I need to tag dummy sectors to raise up and down to create 3d bridges and hope it works the first time"

vs.

"Action 160 for 3d Floors"

Edited by jazzmaster9

Posted (edited)

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Pinchy said:

UDMF is too open ended to teach yourself an important foundation with which to become a well rounded mapper.

 

This is why there are so many instances of "zdoomisms", when a person starts out in that level of complexity, the paths they can take are so broad they fall into the trap of using advanced features in maps that are missing the most important gameplay elements and end up fundamentally flawed for the sake of visuals or gimmicks.

I feel like this perspective is flawed in two ways:

 

One, it puts forth that there's only one way to learn, and that just messing with stuff for the sake of learning how it works and experimenting with it is so bad that it deserves a label, despite the fact that that can be the best way for some people to learn.

 

Two ... I mean, a map's visuals or gimmicks can be the entire reason it exists in the first place.

 

It's a suffocating way to look at things, where there's only one way to do something properly and only a specific result that's a proper end point. A map composed entirely of rooms with square perimeters connected almost exclusively through doors is a gimmicky idea that eschews a lot of traditional mapping advice on here, but it also provides a format perfect for regular, bite-sized challenges much like how the NES Mega Man games were laid out as well as being such an abstract idea that it could allow the author to go wild with the thematics of the actual rooms due to how cohesive the overall thematic of the entire map is. Not to mention that I see plenty of screenshots in this forum's screenshot thread that look uninteresting or outright annoying gameplay-wise, but are nonetheless breath-taking with their visuals.

 

Starting with vanilla Doom, moving onto Boom, and only then messing with ZDoom UDMF may work well if you take an academic approach to mapping, but it's hardly organic for everyone. Organic can be messy and erratic and seem out of order to outsiders, but what ultimately matters is whether or not it makes sense to the person who's learning and allows them to adapt lessons from others in ways that also makes sense to them.

 

Like, for example, how some people in this thread find it simpler to create conveyor loops with voodoo dolls with specifically calculated conveyor speeds and specifically calculated distances between linedefs over just typing up some commands and being able to tweak delays and such without having to drag vertices map unit-by-map unit to get the timing juuuuuust right. It's baffling to me, to be honest, but it wouldn't surprise me if being meticulous with those numbers and having to come up with them is just as overly complicated and baffling to them.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Arctangent said:

it puts forth that there's only one way to learn, and that just messing with stuff for the sake of learning how it works and experimenting with it is so bad that it deserves a label, despite the fact that that can be the best way for some people to learn.

 

Two ... I mean, a map's visuals or gimmicks can be the entire reason it exists in the first place.

 

 

I second this, I've mapped for ZDoom first and learned all the Boom and Vanilla limitations after getting the hang of the editor.

I only used features that I wanted to use, so the argument of "There are too many features and it will be overwhelming" does not always hold water. It's a case to case basis and there is no need to blame the tools for the fault of the mapper.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now