CEONSS

Dinora:

i think it needs more flying vehicles, or else it's a good map only for few people. It's so boring climbing those hills - to node 3 as i remember - with the scorpion.

RottenToTheCore wrote:

Kentaro wrote:To avoid that, we should simply increase the map cycle (don't remember the exact name). Currently it is setted to 28. Could we try 35, or something else?

That's no good idea though. There is a reason why some maps are not played often: They are not too popular. Why force players to play the less popular, for the majority of the players less interesting, maps? If you want to play a map, vote it.

And i think there is a reason for the number 28, as the maps "refresh" every day at the same time. So it won't happen that bots play them alone at night too often .

I think the question is, how does a map become popular? If you vote for a map no-one else knows, you're unlikely to win with just one vote...so most people go for the safe option and follow the crowd.

EmanReleipS wrote:A good thread! (Did I cause this one with one of my comments yesterday?)

The ones I feel the strongest about:

I absolutely hate tanks-a-lot. You're screwed on foot and there are just so many tanks coming in.... I think that it's too easy for the teams to camp at their lower node (down the ramp from the core) and just spawnkill the players at the other team's low node. (I'm struggling a bit with the descriptions here, sorry if it's confusing!) And once the nodes close to the core are taken by the enemy team, the ion tank can just roll in and spawnkill everyone at the core until the core breaks down. I've had the experience that it's pretty much impossible to make a comeback on that map once your enemy has the node on the right side of the core. Most of the time you can't even get out of the base anymore....

Another one I dislike is ......well, I guess it would be helpful if I actually could remember the name...
Well, it's that map with the minefields,the ion cannon at the node in the center of the map, the huge holes you can't get out of and the nodes at the north side of the map (behind a big fence) are inside warehouses.
I dislike this map because of the minefields, big holes, really huge trees (that modified cicada usually lurks in there and drops bombs on the node below the tree), the modified cicada can shoot missiles that will follow you around across half of the map even if the pilot can't see you, and there is one node (directly connected to the core, halfway underground with little poles preventing vehicles from entering) that is really difficult to defend or to retake (because of spawnkilling tanks).

Another one I don't like is My Room or something like that. I find that while the nodes might not be too exposed (because they have that barrier around them), anyone close to them is. I also think that this map really encourages spawnkilling because the cores are directly opposite each other and each has a tank. I've had huge problems just surviving the way to the weapon's locker on that map. Plus, I think that the nodes on the shelf are somewhat hard to access. At least I've made the observation that my team usually had problems holding that node up there.


Okay.....now for my favs: Dria (or Dria-Gorz), RedPlanet, Spankjox (because it's good aiming practice xD), both Maelstrom versions, Silva. I'm okay with almost all maps, though. I really only dislike those listed above and maybe one or two others I can't recall right now.

No it wasn't you Eman, I've been thinking this for a while.

Totally with you on Tanks-a-lot. Hence my sarcastic post the other day called "Tanks-a-rot"

As Anik said, I think you mean Omaha Beach. I'm totally with you on that one too. The modified Cicada ruins it when in the hands of certain players who like to go camping with it. It's overly powerful and not easy to destroy. On foot the map is pretty hopeless, you'll get wiped out and not even see where the shot came from. The minefields are annoying and the holes...I've had to kill myself many times in those! I think you can do a shield gun jump to get out, but I'm no good at it.

I always struggle to remember map names, I really ought to write them down each time...

Raceway is ok, it's a good laugh whizzing around in the stupidly fast vehicles, but usually what happens is a slow miserable death as one side gets all the cores, but can't finish the game as someone parks up with a Paladin shielding the core. Everyone retreats to the base and it's a case of spawnkill/spam-fest, while waiting for the game to time out.

Oh, yes and Spankjox....Good fun, but I hate low grav maps in general...I always fall off the edge. Someone needs to put safety rails in for me!

Wormbo wrote:Raceway is laggy as hell because it contains no optimization whatsoever: No antiportals and no BSP in the terrain that would occlude things in network games.[...]

What 2ndRaceway version are you talking about exactly? Also, the map's design is that of a stadium, a design humans came up with so that they could see every place within that architecture from every other place; at any point during mid-game some 20ish players, along with their assorted, destructive paraphernalia are gonna be relevant to eachother. Realistically we can't expect 2ndRcw to ever be as smoothly flowing as, say, Dawn, even if they were the same size.

Also,

Wormbo wrote:[...]Also...
[TooManyRoadPathNodes.jpg]
*cough*

Hmm. We've been looking into performance improvements for 2nd-Raceway-DW-SP1 recently, but I gotta admit the number of RoadPathNodes was never considered. What makes them too many for that map's size? Would you be interested in helping us towards a baseline for the next edit featuring the optimal number/placement of RPNs? I'd hate to pile on whatever other projects you might have in the works for your UT-related free time, but [road] path node design & optimization is a field we don't have that much experience with internally, yet we still believe 2ndRaceway is a map that can deliver unique and worthwhile ONS gameplay :/.

Anyway, while I can understand why this discussion is unraveling towards something easier for most ppl to discuss, i.e. nitpicking specific maps and what they like/hate about 'em, I'd still want to urge folks here to at least try and pull things back a bit from the specific to the more general/theoretical. That was, after all, this thread's stated original purpose so why not see if we can draw some insightful conclusions that might help aspiring map creators from whatever common elements most successful or problematic maps share? Otherwise, we're each just gonna keep trying to pick n' choose what to fill our proverbial plates with from a 10+ side-topics buffet and you know everyone else's gonna rush to those mini pizza bits and there'll be none left by the time you get there. Man, I hate those double-dippin', few-item stocking bastards with a passion. Wait, what were we talking about again?

Ok, seems like I looked at the wrong version - since it was the only version I could find, I assumed it's the correct one. Got a download?

About the stadium design: Actually a stadium is designed so the spectators can see all the action. A stadium does specifically not guarantee the active competitors to see everything - which honestly would be a bad thing for an Onslaught map. Imagine being able to see (and thus shoot) every node from everywhere. No, what I meant was BSP structure and antiportals inside the terrain to prevent things being replicated or rendered (and then hidden behind something rendered in front) that the player can't see anyway.

Hi people,

Anyway, while I can understand why this discussion is unraveling towards something easier for most ppl to discuss, i.e. nitpicking specific maps and what they like/hate about 'em, I'd still want to urge folks here to at least try and pull things back a bit from the specific to the more general/theoretical. That was, after all, this thread's stated original purpose so why not see if we can draw some insightful conclusions that might help aspiring map creators from whatever common elements most successful or problematic maps share?

I totally agree with peg on this one.
Also, it seems to me that this thread is moving from a "I like this map more, imho" mode, to a "This map is arbitrarily RIGHT/WRONG" mode, and I can say for experience in other forums that that's the recipe for a disaster in any thread...

So... My two cents:

I like many maps, for example: bridge, playground, stonewall, dreamus, tyrant, tripleslap, bitchslap, spiffingrad... You can easiely notice that all of these are NV maps, or at least maps with a strong "on foot" component.
But I also like a lot Grit, SlatedWorld, MasterShower, Tanks-a-lot (even if ion spamming can be a pain in the ass), OmahaBeach (same as previous), and others.

What do all these maps have in common? ...I think: that they have an identity. That they can give me emotions and unique gaming experiences.


For many NV maps, the "emotion" I'm talking about is that kind of adrenalinic rush that triggers when you play a lot of tight action. Bridge is the better on this.

For Slated, is that unique type of flying action, and the challenge granted by the sinergy and the attrition between all these new raptors.
For Tanks-a-lot, is the tactical component of learning when and how to use and deploy heavy vehicles in tight places (and when not do it; I discovered that going on foot can be important, even in this map).
For MasterShower, is the... Everything. You can do a lot of things in this map (sniping, tunneling, tanks driving, flying, on foot duelling...) and that's just fun. Also, the mega spider with lazerz is so cool.

I could go on, but I think that I already made my point.

Please note that this is just a list of things that I personally enjoy in my favorite maps. It's a matter of tastes - so other people tastes could be different, and that's just fine. But I think that this was the whole point of the thread - to spot what we like to play in our favorite maps (and so, what makes a map "successful").


And so, about the map cycle:

I used to have other feelings about it. I wanted to play my favorite maps as soon and often as possible, and so I used to like the "25".

But later... I realized that even playing always my favorite maps is boring for me.
I really love chocolate and nutella icecream. But I'd rather not just eat them all time.

I think that saying "it's ok to play always the same maps, because they are the bests" it's only partially correct.

I mean: yes thery are. But are all the other maps SO bad?


I think that the point is: there are very good maps, bad maps, and "fine enough" maps. (I know I'm oversimplifying here, but I wanted to be understandable)

For example: I'd like to play a lot more (and with more players) Dawn, Torlan32p, Shyron and Pyroclastic. And not to just play them when there are 4 or 5 players online and we don't want to "waste the very good maps" (because, yes, I play a lot Shyron... When we are waiting for other people to join. Sob).

Sometimes, when it's time to vote, someone votes a good map. Like Dawn. Or like Torlan. Or [add what you think is a good map]. And then, someone notices that there is a more popular map available, like Tripleslap, and everybody vote it.

I'd like to have chances to play the most popular maps, AND the "fine enough" maps.


That's it.

Pegasus wrote:Anyway, while I can understand why this discussion is unraveling towards something easier for most ppl to discuss, i.e. nitpicking specific maps and what they like/hate about 'em, I'd still want to urge folks here to at least try and pull things back a bit from the specific to the more general/theoretical.

My bad - I understood the opening post to ask for specific maps I like and dislike, and the reasons behind that.

I think my dislikes can be narrowed down to:

Maps that
- make spawnkilling (esp at the cores) very easy
- make comebacks very difficult (usually due to too powerful vehicles and too few ways to attack them -> Tanks-a-lot)
- make it impossible for you to accomplish anything on foot

Maps that I like usually have a good balance and amount of vehicles, not too many tanks, a decent supply of avrils if there are tanks, several paths to nodes, cores that are not too exposed/ can't be attacked too easily and aren't too huge.

I think that we could use more smaller maps (we have a lot of really vast ones) in general. A lot of large maps would also benefit from the addition of hoverboards or similar to bridge the distances.

I think it's all good, points specific and general...so long as people realise it's different people's "emotions" (as Karma said) we're talking about and don't take anything personally...respect each other's opinions and especially the efforts of those who design and mod maps, giving up their time for free for our entertainment.

I was hoping people could give some feedback for map designers/modders, so of course there will be a lot of noise in that, especially when we are trying to talk about emotions...which most of us guys are not very good at

I just wanted to get away from the: "this map is bad...but why?...cause it is!" kind of mentality.

I'm hoping map designers/modders will find the feedback useful and filter the noise, not to come up with a single formula that suits one type of player or gameplay, but to get pointers for making maps that will suit a range of styles.

I'm even hoping to learn something from more experienced players as to why they like maps I dislike - so they can point out what I'm doing wrong or missing, so I can connect with the "emotion" of the map!

Barracks is a really really bad map:

- You fly against the walls with Raptor and Cicada when you start from the hangar at the core (if you fly fast, and you need to at the beginning of a game)
- The node in the middle is an ideal camping spot and hard to reach, that annoys me every time
- You can shoot tank shells from node to node and spawnkill there (free line of view)

dunno why this map still exists in cycle.

I also very dislike Omaha, eman already gave some examples why, i agree to his points.

AND I(!) hate Master Bath (not shower!) and Gunshop as there are so annoyingly many options to spamkill in the free wide areas, that i always end up to spamkill with tanks also (i don't like tanks too much, they should be for destroying buildings in assault or to destroy other vehicles. Who shoots with tankshells at single infantry oO?), as it is too frustrating to fight without a vehicle there as you are killed within seconds (--> middle node; and that's the node where the action takes place in both maps). In these two maps it's "emotions" again, i think

I also goddamn hate Kingdom, Magic Island, this one spacemap where ebola likes to spamkill and this goddamn volcano map. I think all of them are obscenely ugly and without a clear mapping concept, just funny mountains and many colours and the map is done. Again that's just emotions^^.

I like NV-maps (or near-NV like the slaps) not only because they are good for combowhoring (which i like as you know), but also because many of them are so smartly designed, without areas where just boredom and uninspired random pickups and vehicles were packed into. Bridge and Stonewall are so compact and full of action and every part of the map has something to offer that it's a real joy for me . They are ultimate fighting arenas and thrill most people who play them till the end.

Thanks Peg. The map is indeed quite different and I see your point about being able to see everything. My point about the suboptimal state of the map's rendering and network occlusion still stands, though. It's a bit better, but far from optimal.

I wonder how many other maps cause significantly more network traffic and/or rendering work than necessary. If you're looking for more items to rack up a "critical mass" of changes before a next edit, this aspect might be worth considering as well.