Skip to content

Apparatus DM - #126

Open
DESTROYGIRL wants to merge 2 commits into
NeotokyoRebuild:masterfrom
DESTROYGIRL:apparatus
Open

Apparatus DM#126
DESTROYGIRL wants to merge 2 commits into
NeotokyoRebuild:masterfrom
DESTROYGIRL:apparatus

Conversation

@DESTROYGIRL

@DESTROYGIRL DESTROYGIRL commented Jul 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Deathmatch map out at sea.

NeotokyoRebuild/neo#2038

@DESTROYGIRL
DESTROYGIRL requested a review from a team July 28, 2026 13:25
@DESTROYGIRL DESTROYGIRL added the Map Submission New map- to be reviewed by judges label Jul 28, 2026
@Rainyan
Rainyan self-requested a review August 3, 2026 14:22
Rainyan

This comment was marked as resolved.

Rainyan

This comment was marked as resolved.

Rainyan
Rainyan previously approved these changes Aug 3, 2026
@Rainyan
Rainyan requested a review from a team August 3, 2026 19:48
@Rainyan

Rainyan commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

(Also mostly focused on the negatives/things to fix but map looks cool 👍 )

@DESTROYGIRL

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Thanks for the thorough review. BTW it may have been easier to track discussion if there was a review comment for each comment, but its all good XD

Are these cranes in the BG scenery intentional? It feels a bit weird since the environment gives a sense of being stranded at sea, but then these crane views kinda clash with that image making it feel like actually we're quite near to land. But maybe personal preference in terms of visual design.

The cranes are supposed to be part of other platforms in this cluster out at sea much like the one the map is on, not land. Granted I could have made some custom sprites for it but I don't think it would look much different. Initially I was going to have some glowing sprites, but I found it very difficult to achieve with the limitations of the skybox

This spawn feels super dark

I'll add some light to these edge areas.

Am I supposed to be able to do this jump puzzle? Since it feels like the playerclip is trying to prevent me from jumping atop the fence using the orange handrail, so getting kinda mixed signals from the level design

Yes, you're allowed to stand on top of it, the clip is there to prevent players from standing on the handrail so half of their body isn't obscured while they peek out the top. I'll add something to make it obvious it can't be stood on

Some weird-feeling areas around the props with no collision box around the vertices - perhaps these should be manually clipped for consistency

I'll clip these

Getting network prediction errors when these props are moving around/interacting with players

I added these for the simple joy of monkey push thing down hill, I thought prediction errors were par for the course with server simulated physics props, I'd prefer not to remove them unless they pose a significant obstruction to gameplay, you can only push them off once really so I thought the impact to be minimal. Despite 20 years of technological advancements I am still enjoying random things like this personally

feels strange for this futuristic generator to make no sound whatsoever

It does make sound, ambient_generic sounds don't play until the round starts like most maps due to them starting before the client connects

super strong defensive angle here, is this intentional

I'll jam something in there

This walk feels a bit clumsy since the walk physics routine is preventing you from climbing this slope without climbing

I can add a little clip stair there

Very nitpicky but maybe improve the playerclip here...

Will do

it feels like the game affordances are telling me I should be able to climb this roof but I can't

I'll put a small fence there or something

Similar situation...

This one I felt the same but is very very difficult to do without making the structure look very stupid. I'll try and add something

...maybe extend it a little bit more to the side...

Will do.

A non-recon player could accidentally stuck themselves in this corner

I'll lower the handrails

These props don't seem to predict very well...

See earlier response

Is this sniper spot intentional?

Not intentional, good find. Will fix

Also that above ladder kinda reads like it should lead the player into some meaningful position

It sort of does, it can be used to easily get to the roof with skillfull movement when jumping off. It leads a lot higher because its cool to get an extra high view of the map (though you aren't supposed to be able to stand at the top)

This area feels like it's giving mixed signals of whether you can/cannot move across it

I recognised this, though the beams are part of the prop and it looks good, I thought it might be okay like this as a high risk niche spot

This window seems to be rendering differently based on the side you're looking from

Intentional one sided glass, though its only going to exist until the first engagement in that area until its smashed for the 10+ minutes game, thought it'd be funny to have

@DESTROYGIRL
DESTROYGIRL marked this pull request as draft August 3, 2026 20:12
@Rainyan

Rainyan commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

BTW it may have been easier to track discussion if there was a review comment for each comment(...)

Ah, my bad. GitHub does this automatically for code comments but it didn't occur to me to split comments for a manually written report for something like map feedback. I'll keep it in mind for the future though!

I added these for the simple joy of monkey push thing down hill, I thought prediction errors were par for the course with server simulated physics props, I'd prefer not to remove them unless they pose a significant obstruction to gameplay, you can only push them off once really so I thought the impact to be minimal.

Can't really argue against that. Felt like pointing it out since my prediction error log was crying wolf, but indeed physics-based barrels flying around is infinitely more fun than no barrel frantically flying around. I say screw the errors & keep the physics barrels!

@Rainyan

Rainyan commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

It does make sound, ambient_generic sounds don't play until the round starts like most maps due to them starting before the client connects

Ah, this is my bad for not having bots connect but simply exploring the map alone.

@Rainyan

Rainyan commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Intentional one sided glass, though its only going to exist until the first engagement in that area until its smashed for the 10+ minutes game, thought it'd be funny to have

This one's really hard to communicate to the player without them being frustrated if/when they get killed not knowing about it. But I can respect the experiment, just wanted to know if this was on purpose and not a bug.

Sort of off-topic but it would be cool if we had design language to signal to the player that there is one-sided vision at play for a surface. But maybe too niche to put too much effort into(?) Similar to how we have the "BALLISTIC GLASS" or whatever red decal which tells the player exactly that, used in maps like tarmac etc. Like have some kind of symbol for this concept.

@DESTROYGIRL

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

But maybe too niche to put too much effort into

Well, I think this sort of thing anywhere is kind of dumb design which is why it isn't done much, or at least with surfaces you can shoot through. I'd be more inclined to just make it opaque on both sides. Probably more skill involved in being able to guess where the enemy is before shooting from footsteps or something, currently its like single use wallhax lol

@DESTROYGIRL
DESTROYGIRL marked this pull request as ready for review August 4, 2026 22:31
@DESTROYGIRL
DESTROYGIRL requested a review from Rainyan August 4, 2026 22:31
@Rainyan
Rainyan requested a review from a team August 5, 2026 14:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Map Submission New map- to be reviewed by judges

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants