[divan]

Does anyone really get something useful from this text?

I thought it's something at the level of "Designing Virtual Worlds" by Richard Bartle, but it's just a set of statements like "level should have an entry and the exit" and "don't do bad maps", for some reason labelled "theories", heavily pierced with phrases like "ummm, hard to explain".

[trashb]

> "level should have an entry and the exit"

You would be surprised how many new mappers don't include a clear exit in their levels.

> heavily pierced with phrases like "ummm, hard to explain".

Good vs bad level design is always subjective as is generally the case in design, for example what is experienced as good or bad it is dependent on the preferences and the experience of the player, perhaps even the setting (competitive vs casual).

In level-design what quantifies a "good level" is very dependent on the game-design decisions learning this is very important to make good levels. For example even q1 and q2 differ in what is good design due to the technical differences of the two games (full 3d rendering in q2) good q1 levels are more fast pace "run and gun" while q2 enemies force a more tactical approach (they take more shots to kill). Even though some of the qualities of good design also overlap between several games, for example there is a overlap in all FPS game levels. Even in the same game multiplayer vs singleplayer maps have very different requirements.

> And for my next trick, I shall <drum roll> attempt to... </dr> ...define the undefinable!!!

While perhaps not perfect I think this article indicates some of the common pitfalls for inexperienced mappers. This is important especially for beginning mappers as it will allow them to grow a sense of good vs bad design quickly.

I think the author also didn't come up with these requirements out of nowhere, these are echoed throughout the (quake) mapping community and I think it is a good effort to put it into text and allow discussion for this particular game.

[eek2121]

I didn't read. One issue with BYD (outside of the quality level of the article, which, as I stated, I didn't read) is that they are government subsidized. The bigger issue, that I've read about at least, is that they phone home to China.I don't want my car phoning any data to anywhere, even here in the U.S. I had a car that definitely was phoning home to Hyundai, and I had to sell it for unrelated reasons. I now share a dumb car with my spouse and while I hate having "dumb" features, I silently do a small happy dance since that is one less way I can be tracked (license plate readers and other such tech also happen to be illegal/not a thing here)

I also use an eScooter which is dumb as a brick locally, so definitely doing a double happy dance.

[Neeek]

Did you mean to reply to the BYD lidar thread on the front page right now?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46579927

[paulryanrogers]

Was this response meant for a different thread?