Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Soldat Du Christ

de_Victorian

Recommended Posts

I find the overview map really sexy, interesting geometry and layout. From that it feels the spawn points are in the wrong place somehow...

Anyway I'm not sure if is worth spending all these words on map design theory, it would be clear to anyone that doesn't know Soldat's background in Halo mapping that the map doesn't follow the common conception of a CS map.

What I'm really interested to understand is what you want to get out of this @Soldat Du Christ. I think you can tell from the feedback here and previous discussions that you can't expect to put this out in the workshop and become the most played custom map. So what do you want to get out of it, is it just a learning experience for the tools?

I can see this working well in a fun mode (Flying Scoutsman, Arms Race, DM) as it is, if you want it as a viable de_ map there's no way you are going to convince players with words. You either build it for a small community that is open to try wacky maps (3Kliksphillip has created a whole new mode and his community has been having fun building and playing on his server) or you are going to have to compromise and leverage some of the interesting concepts you've got going on. For example, reading about the rooftop gameplay makes me think it would be interesting having movement happening on two distinct layers of the map, ground floor and rooftops; it could be interesting to reverse the current state of affairs and make the rooftops the main way to get around (read: add appropriate cover, vantage points) and having to drop and expose yourself to plant the bomb. I could go on :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want you guys to think I'm not listening, or that I'm dismissing all your feedback. There where some good points you guys have made about the map. I think while I achieved some of my goals in certain categories, I overlooked more subtle aspects of the game, like @Roald made a good observation about how the lack of negative space can make footsteps more of a presence on the map. Pretty much everyone has made a comment that the map is unintuitive, which, according the the standards of what you guys expect, I can understand, and even agree that is a negative about the map. And obviously the water sucks the way players can wade really far out with a sniper and get lots of angles, I'm still trying to find the best solution to the problem without sacrificing what it was intended for (negating fall damage and providing a sense of place) and 
@csWaldo pointed out that because of the open-ness, flashbangs are more powerful & annoying

These are all unintentional features that i'll admit are negatives about the map

On the other hand, a lot of objections you guys have made are premature, and in some cases objectively wrong. So many complaints about there being to many angles to worry about, only because you don't know which ones you don't have to worry about. During the test, I noticed everyone was looking at spots they had no reason to worry about because it was still the beginning of the match and it would have been impossible for enemy targets to be at the angles they where checking. The players didn't even know where the first encounters were. 

You can keep beating it into my head that these are symptoms of how unintuitive the map is and I will KEEP AGREEING WITH YOU FOR THE HUNDRETH TIME. But what is not okay, is coming to conclusions so early when it's painfully obvious you haven't figured it out yet. You guys are free to dismiss the map if you don't care enough to put any more effort into figuring it out, I will continue to listen to all your points and see if I can improve my map based on your feedback

 

@blackdog I hate having to keep explaining and defending my intentions, I've already expressed several times what my goals where. It's a little bit of everything, but mostly because I like to try and push boundaries and inspire others. Most people try to make maps for what they already know the community likes, and wants. I want to be the guy that makes a map you  NEVER KNEW you wanted. Usually these people are in the minority, and i'm okay with that

Edited by Soldat Du Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should honestly reconsider what you want this map to be.

Your're hardly pushing boundaries and inspiring others here. Verticality, free movement and jumping puzzles are nothing new to cs so much so that the community has made entire game modes around those things and they have been popular through multiple instances of the game.
Many old cs layouts feature large verticality, uncommon layout structures and other novel ideas. None of this is news to us.
The idea of a fun, casual map is nothing new either. People have been making them to play with their friends and on LANs since forever. We have playtested maps like this here before. And they can be good fun.

However, none of these maps claim or try to be competitive because they simply are not. What you are doing with this map in regards to competitive is pushing boundaries in the same way that playing chess with only kings would be pushing boundaries.

It was obvious that this would be the case with your level from the start to a lot of us but when we told you, you acted like you know better than all of us despite barely ever having played the game let alone made maps for it. We still playtested it and everyone at the playtest gave you the same feedback:
It was kinda fun, because it was very chaotic and wild. But it also didn't even rate as a competitive layout. The concepts youre trying to add to the game simply don't work on a competitive level on the scale you are trying them. If you want this to be a competitive map, you need to actually understand how competitive is played and build your level towards that.
Dismissing this feedback from the entire professional community as "you guys just didnt learn the map well enough and you just dont care enough to figure it out" is silly and arrogant.

So, figure out what your goal is here.
Wanna make a crazy, fun map that has all the features a competitive layout is generally missing? Go for it. Just dont keep telling us about how it is actually the best competitive map ever and all other maps are stale and generic. Because by your own admission, you know nothing about that.

Or try to make a unique, well working competitive layout. There is always room for innovation and new ideas. But if you want to subvert the rules, you must first properly understand them.

People here are generally very helpful and give you tons of great advice and feedback. Just stop dismissing everyone and take some of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a map isn't intuitive, it's bad design. If by the end of a match players still haven't figured out where the encounters points are, it's bad design. If players need to watch a video to understand how to properly play it, it's bad design.

Mark Rosewater, the lead designer of MTG coined a game design philosophy that I think applies to all types of competitive games: lenticular design. It's the idea of creating something that on the surface is seemingly simple but as players understand it more they become more complex. This approach produces designs that have depth while also creating an intuitive learning curve. In contrast your map is just outright complex and doesn't have the elegance or simplicity that you see in active duty maps. I don't think you're placing enough value on making design decisions that guide the player and set them on a path to discovering depth. 

The biggest issue to me is that you're giving players way too much freedom, to the point where the checks and balances of the game begin to fade away. The incredible amount of freedom players have is also what makes it so unintuitive. Players need constraints. The art is in giving them constraints that still allow for a lot of expression.

I think it's also terribly misguided to chalk it all up to a lack of patience on the mapping community's part. If you think we're impatient, wait until you hear what players say. A lot of players will make their verdict within the first few rounds of playing a map for the first time. If they're dying to AWPs on rooftops halfway across the map, that's GG.

It honestly doesn't feel great to see everyone pile on you like this. Seems like you put a lot of thought into your level designs, and you've probably done some good work for Halo, but you've come here with a whole lot of bravado for someone who has barely played any counter-strike. It would behoove you to play the game more if you aspire to make something that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really love all these ideas you're adding, it really looks like a map that'll play super differently! And might I say, I can tell already it's gonna look awesome when it's detailed. It gives me a slight Arkham Asylum vibe (After all, both are 1800's factories on islands)

Though I am a little worried about how pistol rounds will play. It looks like it'll be fun with rifles, but imagining the current layout with pistols only is a little hard to picture. Now I could be wrong since I haven't played it, but maybe the addition of more close-quarters areas would be a neat addition for players with less money saved up.

Best of luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...